Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography

JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095.

Abstract

Importance: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results.

Objective: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States.

Design, setting, and participants: Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect.

Exposures: Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012.

Main outcomes and measures: Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy.

Results: A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Breast Neoplasms / diagnostic imaging*
  • Early Detection of Cancer*
  • False Positive Reactions
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Mammography / methods*
  • Mass Screening
  • Middle Aged
  • Radiographic Image Enhancement*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed*
  • United States