From the Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, 1 Silverstein Place, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (S.P.Z., E.F.C.); and Departments of Surgery (B.L.S.), Pathology (D.L.W.), and Radiology (S.D.H.), University of Vermont, University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, Vt.
Radiology. 2020 Dec;297(3):545-553. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200240. Epub 2020 Oct 13.
BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate ( = .54), false-negative rate ( = .38), cancer detection rate ( = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate ( = .52 and = .98, respectively), positive predictive value ( = .78), or sensitivity ( = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution ( > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.
背景
数字乳腺断层合成摄影术(DBT)结合数字乳腺摄影术(DM)在美国越来越多地用于乳腺癌筛查,而不是单独使用 DM。早期结合合成乳腺摄影术(SM)的 DBT 筛查结果表明,SM 是一种可接受的非辐射剂量替代 DM 的方法。
目的
比较 SM/DBT 与 DM/DBT 用于乳腺癌筛查的多中心结果。
材料与方法
这是一项在两家机构进行的连续筛查性乳腺 X 线摄影的回顾性研究。合格的研究包括 2011 年 10 月 3 日至 2014 年 10 月 31 日期间进行的 34106 例 DM/DBT 检查,以及 2015 年 1 月 7 日至 2018 年 2 月 2 日在宾夕法尼亚大学进行的 34180 例 SM/DBT 检查,以及 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2016 年 5 月 31 日在佛蒙特大学进行的 51148 例 DM/DBT 检查,以及 2016 年 6 月 1 日至 2018 年 3 月 30 日在佛蒙特大学进行的 31929 例 SM/DBT 检查。记录参加筛查的女性的人口统计学资料和筛查结果。根据方式和机构计算召回率、活检率、假阴性率、癌症检出率、阳性预测值、灵敏度和特异性。采用描述性统计、χ 检验和逻辑回归进行分析。
结果
这项研究包括 151363 名女性的 151363 次筛查检查(平均年龄,58.1 岁±10.9[标准差])。SM/DBT 的未调整召回率低于 DM/DBT(SM/DBT 为 7.0%[4630/66109 例],DM/DBT 为 7.9%[6742/85254 例];<.01)。然而,经过多变量调整后,SM/DBT 的召回率略高于 DM/DBT(调整后的优势比[OR],1.06;调整后的 95%置信区间:1.01,1.11;<.02)。同样,经过多变量调整后,SM/DBT 的特异性略低于 DM/DBT(调整后的 OR,0.95;调整后的 95%置信区间:0.90,0.99;<.02)。SM/DBT 与 DM/DBT 总体或在任一机构内的活检率(=0.54)、假阴性率(=0.38)、癌症检出率(=0.55)、浸润性或原位癌检出率(=0.52 和=0.98,分别)、阳性预测值(=0.78)或灵敏度(=0.33)均无统计学差异(所有 P 值>.05)。
结论
当合成乳腺摄影术替代数字乳腺摄影术用于数字乳腺断层合成摄影术成像时,乳腺癌筛查的性能保持在基准范围内。
© 2020 RSNA,见本期内 Lång 的社论。