Korean J Radiol.
2023 Apr;24(4):274-283. 10.3348/kjr.2022.0649.
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts
- Affiliations
-
- 1Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- 2Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea
- 3Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- 4Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
- KMID: 2541015
- DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2022.0649
Abstract
Objective
To compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared.
Results
A total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40–78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8–19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726; 95% CI: 5.7–15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.889). DBT cohort showed a higher AIR than the DM cohort (31.6% [273 of 863; 95% CI: 28.5%–34.9%] vs. 22.4% [387 of 1726; 95% CI: 20.5%–24.5%]; P < 0.001). The sensitivity for both cohorts was 100%. In women with negative findings on DBT or DM, supplemental US yielded similar CDRs in both DBT and DM cohorts (4.0 vs. 3.3 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.803) and higher AIR in the DBT cohort (24.8% [188 of 758; 95% CI: 21.8%–28.0%] vs. 16.9% [257 of 1516; 95% CI: 15.1%–18.9%; P < 0.001).
Conclusion
DBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.
