Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Introduction of one-view tomosynthesis in population-based mammography screening: Impact on detection rate, interval cancer rate and false-positive rate. |
| Authors: |
Vilmun, Bolette Mikela1,2,3 bolette.mikela.vilmun@regionh.dk, Napolitano, George4, Lillholm, Martin5,6, Winkel, Rikke Rass1,7, Lynge, Elsebeth8, Nielsen, Mads5,6, Nielsen, Michael Bachmann1,3, Carlsen, Jonathan Frederik1,3, von Euler-Chelpin, My4, Vejborg, Ilse1,2 |
| Source: |
Journal of Medical Screening. Mar2025, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p28-34. 7p. |
| Subject Terms: |
*BREAST tumor diagnosis, *MAMMOGRAMS, *RESEARCH funding, *BREAST tumors, *EARLY detection of cancer, *DIAGNOSTIC errors, *LONGITUDINAL method, *COMPARATIVE studies, *SENSITIVITY & specificity (Statistics) |
| Geographic Terms: |
DENMARK |
| Abstract: |
Objective: To assess performance endpoints of a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM only in breast cancer screening. Materials and methods: This was a prospective population-based screening study, including eligible (50–69 years) women attending the Capital Region Mammography Screening Program in Denmark. All attending women were offered FFDM. A subgroup was consecutively allocated to a screening room with DBT. All FFDM and DBT underwent independent double reading, and all women were followed up for 2 years after screening date or until next screening date, whichever came first. Results: 6353 DBT + FFDM and 395 835 FFDM were included in the analysis and were undertaken in 196 267 women in the period from 1 November 2012 to 12 December 2018. Addition of DBT increased sensitivity: 89.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81.0–95.5) for DBT + FFDM and 70.1% (95% CI: 68.6–71.6) for FFDM only, p < 0.001. Specificity remained similar: 98.2% (95% CI: 97.9–98.5) for DBT + FFDM and 98.3% (95% CI: 98.2–98.3) for FFDM only, p = 0.9. Screen-detected cancer rate increased statistically significantly: 11.18/1000 for DBT + FFDM and 6.49/1000 for FFDM only, p < 0.001. False-positive rate was unchanged: 1.75% for DBT + FFDM and 1.73% for FFDM only, p = 0.9. Positive predictive value for recall was 39.0% (95% CI: 31.9–46.5) for DBT + FFDM and 27.3% (95% CI: 26.4–28.2), for FFDM only, p < 0.0005. The interval cancer rate decreased: 1.26/1000 for DBT + FFDM and 2.76/1000 for FFDM only, p = 0.02. Conclusion: DBT + FFDM yielded a statistically significant increase in cancer detection and program sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Journal of Medical Screening is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Academic Search Complete |
