TY - JOUR
T1 - Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants
T2 - retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis
AU - Cohen, Ethan O.
AU - Perry, Rachel E.
AU - Tso, Hilda H.
AU - Phalak, Kanchan A.
AU - Lesslie, Michele D.
AU - Gerlach, Karen E.
AU - Sun, Jia
AU - Srinivasan, Ashmitha
AU - Leung, Jessica W.T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Objectives: Compare four groups being screened: women without breast implants undergoing digital mammography (DM), women without breast implants undergoing DM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), women with implants undergoing DM, and women with implants undergoing DM/DBT. Methods: Mammograms from February 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed after 13,201 were excluded for a unilateral implant or prior breast cancer. Patients had been allowed to choose between DM and DM/DBT screening. Mammography performance metrics were compared using chi-square tests. Results: Six thousand forty-one women with implants and 91,550 women without implants were included. In mammograms without implants, DM (n = 113,973) and DM/DBT (n = 61,896) yielded recall rates (RRs) of 8.53% and 6.79% (9726/113,973 and 4204/61,896, respectively, p <.001), cancer detection rates per 1000 exams (CDRs) of 3.96 and 5.12 (451/113,973 and 317/61,896, respectively, p =.003), and positive predictive values for recall (PPV1s) of 4.64% and 7.54% (451/9726 and 317/4204, respectively, p <.001), respectively. In mammograms with implants, DM (n = 6815) and DM/DBT (n = 5138) yielded RRs of 5.81% and 4.87% (396/6815 and 250/5138, respectively, p =.158), CDRs of 2.49 and 2.92 (17/6815 and 15/5138, respectively, p > 0.999), and PPV1s of 4.29% and 6.0% (17/396 and 15/250, respectively, p > 0.999), respectively. Conclusions: DM/DBT significantly improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to DM alone in women without implants. DM/DBT performance in women with implants trended towards similar improvements, though no metric was statistically significant. Key Points: • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women without implants. • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis trended towards improving recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women with implants, but these trends were not statistically significant — likely related to sample size.
AB - Objectives: Compare four groups being screened: women without breast implants undergoing digital mammography (DM), women without breast implants undergoing DM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), women with implants undergoing DM, and women with implants undergoing DM/DBT. Methods: Mammograms from February 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed after 13,201 were excluded for a unilateral implant or prior breast cancer. Patients had been allowed to choose between DM and DM/DBT screening. Mammography performance metrics were compared using chi-square tests. Results: Six thousand forty-one women with implants and 91,550 women without implants were included. In mammograms without implants, DM (n = 113,973) and DM/DBT (n = 61,896) yielded recall rates (RRs) of 8.53% and 6.79% (9726/113,973 and 4204/61,896, respectively, p <.001), cancer detection rates per 1000 exams (CDRs) of 3.96 and 5.12 (451/113,973 and 317/61,896, respectively, p =.003), and positive predictive values for recall (PPV1s) of 4.64% and 7.54% (451/9726 and 317/4204, respectively, p <.001), respectively. In mammograms with implants, DM (n = 6815) and DM/DBT (n = 5138) yielded RRs of 5.81% and 4.87% (396/6815 and 250/5138, respectively, p =.158), CDRs of 2.49 and 2.92 (17/6815 and 15/5138, respectively, p > 0.999), and PPV1s of 4.29% and 6.0% (17/396 and 15/250, respectively, p > 0.999), respectively. Conclusions: DM/DBT significantly improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to DM alone in women without implants. DM/DBT performance in women with implants trended towards similar improvements, though no metric was statistically significant. Key Points: • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women without implants. • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis trended towards improving recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women with implants, but these trends were not statistically significant — likely related to sample size.
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Breast implants
KW - Mammography
KW - Screening
KW - Tomosynthesis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106226040&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85106226040&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-021-08040-3
DO - 10.1007/s00330-021-08040-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 34014380
AN - SCOPUS:85106226040
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 31
SP - 9499
EP - 9510
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 12
ER -