Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Feb;156(1):109-16.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1. Epub 2016 Mar 1.

Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium

Emily F Conant  1 , Elisabeth F Beaber  2 , Brian L Sprague  3   4 , Sally D Herschorn  4   5 , Donald L Weaver  4   6 , Tracy Onega  7   8 , Anna N A Tosteson  7   8 , Anne Marie McCarthy  9 , Steven P Poplack  10 , Jennifer S Haas  11 , Katrina Armstrong  9 , Mitchell D Schnall  12 , William E Barlow  13
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium

Emily F Conant et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb.

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the new standard of care for breast cancer screening based on improved cancer detection coupled with reductions in recall compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, many prior studies lack follow-up data to assess false negatives examinations. The purpose of this study is to assess if DBT is associated with improved screening outcomes based on follow-up data from tumor registries or pathology. Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Recall and biopsy rates were assessed from 198,881 women age 40-74 years undergoing screening (142,883 DM and 55,998 DBT examinations). Cancer, cancer detection, and false negative rates and positive predictive values were assessed on examinations with one year of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to compare DBT to DM adjusting for research center, age, prior breast imaging, and breast density. There was a reduction in recall with DBT compared to DM (8.7 vs. 10.4 %, p < 0.0001), with adjusted OR = 0.68 (95 % CI = 0.65-0.71). DBT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cancer detection over DM (5.9 vs. 4.4/1000 screened, adjusted OR = 1.45, 95 % CI = 1.12-1.88), an improvement in PPV1 (6.4 % for DBT vs. 4.1 % for DM, adjusted OR = 2.02, 95 % CI = 1.54-2.65), and no significant difference in false negative rates for DBT compared to DM (0.46 vs. 0.60/1000 screened, p = 0.347). Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations.

Keywords: Breast cancer screening; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Mammography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS of INTEREST:

Author E.F.C. is a consultant and has been a lecturer for Hologic, Inc., Bedford MA and Siemen’s Healthcare. Author S.P.P. has been renumerated for participating as a reader for Biomedical Systems, St. Louis, MO. Author S.D.H. holds stock in Hologic, Inc. Bedford, MA. Author K.A. is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data availability for imaging, pathology, and cancer outcome by calendar time
Abbreviations: DBT=digital breast tomosynthesis, UPenn=University of Pennsylvania, D-BWH =Dartmouth-Hitchcock health system and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, VT=University of Vermont *UPenn imaging data includes imaging from 1/1/12 to 12/31/13. Follow-up imaging data were available through 6/30/14. The largest imaging site began exclusively using tomosynthesis on October 1, 2011, but data availablility began on January 1, 2012. Cancer data also included UPenn institutional cancer registry data through June 2014.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014301. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014302. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):399–406. - PubMed
    1. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56. - PubMed
    1. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583–9. - PubMed

Publication types