The ability of digital breast tomosynthesis to reduce additional examinations in older women.

AIMS

To assess the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in older women across varying breast densities and to compare its effectiveness for cancer detection with 2D mammography and ultrasound (U/S) for different breast density categories. Furthermore, our study aimed to predict the potential reduction in unnecessary additional examinations among older women due to DBT.

METHODS

This study encompassed a cohort of 224 older women. Each participant underwent both 2D mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis examinations. Supplementary views were conducted when necessary, including spot compression and magnification, ultrasound, and recommended biopsies. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for 2D mammography, DBT, and ultrasound. The impact of DBT on diminishing the need for supplementary imaging procedures was predicted through binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

In dense breast tissue, DBT exhibited notably heightened sensitivity and NPV for lesion detection compared to non-dense breasts (61.9% vs. 49.3%, < 0.001) and (72.9% vs. 67.9%, < 0.001), respectively. However, the AUC value of DBT in dense breasts was lower compared with non-dense breasts (0.425 vs. 0.670). Regarding the ability to detect calcifications, DBT demonstrated significantly improved sensitivity and NPV in dense breasts compared to non-dense breasts (100% vs. 99.2%, < 0.001) and (100% vs. 94.7%, < 0.001), respectively. On the other hand, the AUC value of DBT was slightly lower in dense breasts compared with non-dense (0.682 vs. 0.711). Regarding lesion detection for all cases between imaging examinations, the highest sensitivity was observed in 2D mammography (91.7%, < 0.001), followed by DBT (83.7%, < 0.001), and then ultrasound (60.6%, < 0.001). In dense breasts, sensitivity for lesion detection was highest in 2D mammography (92.9%, < 0.001), followed by ultrasound (76.2%, < 0.001), and the last one was DBT. In non-dense breasts, sensitivities were 91% ( < 0.001) for 2D mammography, 50.7% ( < 0.001) for ultrasound, and 49.3% ( < 0.001) for DBT. In terms of calcification detection, DBT displayed significantly superior sensitivity compared to 2D mammography in both dense and non-dense breasts (100% vs. 91.4%, < 0.001) and (99.2% vs. 78.5%, < 0.001), respectively. However, the logistic regression model did not identify any statistically significant relationship ( > 0.05) between DBT and the four dependent variables.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that among older women, DBT does not significantly decrease the requirement for further medical examinations.