Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To retrospectively investigate early performance measures of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus standard digital mammography (DM) for consecutive screening rounds.

Methods

We included information about 35,736 women screened in BreastScreen Norway, 2008–2016, with at least two consecutive screening examinations. The pair of two consecutive screening examinations was the unit of analysis, and results from the subsequent examination were the measure of interest. Screening technique changed during the study period, resulting in four study groups: DM after DM, DBT after DM, DM after DBT, and DBT after DBT. We compared selected early performance measures between the study groups.

Results

Recall for DM after DM was 3.6% and lower for all other study groups (p < 0.001). The rate of screen-detected breast cancer was 4.6/1000 for DM after DM; for DBT after DM and DBT after DBT, it was 9.9/1000 and 8.3/1000, respectively (p < 0.001 relative to DM after DM), and for DM after DBT 4.3/1000. The rate of tubular carcinoma was higher for DBT after DBT or after DM compared with DM after DM (p < 0.01). The rate of histologic grade 1 tumors was higher for DBT after DM compared with DM after DM (p < 0.001). We did not observe any statistical difference in the interval cancer rates.

Conclusions

Lower recall and higher cancer detection rates for screening with DBT were sustainable over two consecutive screening rounds. Positive predictive values were higher for DBT than DM. There were no differences in the interval cancer rates between the study groups.

Key Points

• There is limited knowledge about early performance measures for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis beyond one screening round.

• A decline in recall rate and an incline in the rate of screen-detected breast cancer were observed for women screened with DBT compared with DM, irrespective of prior screening technique. The interval breast cancer rate did not differ statistically for women screened with DBT versus DM.

• Tumor characteristics tended to be prognostic favorable for DBT compared with DM with no differences in rates of more advanced cancers. The clinical significance of increased cancer detection and the potential for future mortality reduction remain unknown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CC:

Craniocaudal

DBT:

Digital breast tomosynthesis

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

DM:

Digital mammography

ER:

Estrogen receptor

FN:

False negative

FP:

False positive

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

IDC:

Invasive ductal carcinoma

ILC:

Invasive lobular carcinoma

ITC:

Invasive tubular carcinoma

MLO:

Mediolateral oblique

OTST:

Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

OVVV-study:

Oslo-Vestfold-Vestre Viken study

PPV:

Positive predictive value

PR:

Progesterone receptor

SM:

Synthetic mammogram

STORM:

Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammography

TN:

True negative

TP:

True positive

References

  1. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2018) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:942–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17:1105–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zackrisson S, Lång K, Rosso A et al (2018) One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30521-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI et al (2018) Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169:489–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F et al (2018) Interval breast cancers in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial. Breast 38:150–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Morris E, Feig SA, Drexler M, Lehman C (2015) Implications of overdiagnosis: impact on screening mammography practices. Popul Health Manag 18(Suppl 1):S3–S11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 277:697–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2017) Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories. Breast Cancer Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4458-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281:730–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Aase HS, Holen ÅS, Pedersen K et al (2018) A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen ÅS et al (2018) Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171361:171361

  18. Hofvind S, Tsuruda K, Mangerud G et al (2017) The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program, 1996-2016: Celebrating 20 years of organised mammographic screening. In: Cancer in Norway 2016 - Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway

  19. Ministry of Health and Care Services (2001) Forskrift om innsamling og behandling av helseopplysninger i Kreftregisteret (The Cancer Registry Regulation) Available via https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2001-12-21-1477. Accessed 10 April 2019

  20. Hofvind S, Sagstad S, Sebuødegård S, Chen Y, Roman M, Lee CI (2018) Interval breast cancer rates and histopathologic tumor characteristics after false-positive findings at mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 287:58–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial. Radiology 288:375–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bernardi D, Li T, Pellegrini M et al (2018) Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: a descriptive study. Eur J Radiol 106:26–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhargava S, Tsuruda K, Moen K, Bukholm I, Hofvind S (2018) Lower attendance rates in immigrant versus non-immigrant women in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. J Med Screen 25:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Vestre Viken Health Trust partially funded the salary for TH during the project period. Planning of the study and the analyses were not related to this funding, and the health trust did not contribute academically to the study. SH is the Head of BreastScreen Norway

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding for running the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Vestre Viken Hospital, Drammen, Norway

    Tone Hovda & Hilde Bjørndal

  2. Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Siri H. B. Brandal & Per Skaane

  3. Cancer Registry of Norway, P.O 5313, Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway

    Sofie Sebuødegård, Åsne S. Holen & Solveig Hofvind

  4. Oslo Metropolitan University, Faculty of Health Science, Oslo, Norway

    Solveig Hofvind

Authors
  1. Tone Hovda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siri H. B. Brandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sofie Sebuødegård
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Åsne S. Holen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hilde Bjørndal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Per Skaane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Solveig Hofvind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solveig Hofvind.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Solveig Hofvind.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. SH is the Head of BreastScreen Norway, but has permanent employment as a researcher at the Cancer Registry of Norway, independent of her job as administrative leader of BreastScreen Norway.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

The Cancer Registry Regulation gives approval with waiver of informed consent to perform surveillance, quality assurance, and studies based on data collected as a part of invitation to and participation in the program.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Data was collected from BreastScreen Norway and thus covered by the Cancer Registry Regulation. Data from the Oslo Tomosynthesis Study Trial, as a part of BreastScreen Norway, was also approved by the regional ethical committee and data from the Oslo-Vestre-Viken-Vestfold study was approved by the institutional Data Protection Officer.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been included in previously published papers—the Oslo Tomosynthesis Trial and the Oslo-Vestfold-VestreViken study.

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56.

Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen ÅS et al (2018) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171361:171361

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Observational

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 33 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hovda, T., Brandal, S.H.B., Sebuødegård, S. et al. Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Eur Radiol 29, 6991–6999 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06264-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06264-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation