From the Departments of Radiology (M.B., S.M., C.D.L.) and Medicine (A.M.M.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, WAC 240; Boston, MA 02114.
Radiology. 2021 Feb;298(2):308-316. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201854. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
Background Among breast cancer survivors, detecting a breast cancer when it is asymptomatic (rather than symptomatic) improves survival; thus, imaging surveillance in these patients is warranted. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is used for screening, but data on DBT for surveillance in this high-risk population are limited. Purpose To determine whether DBT leads to improved screening performance metrics when compared with two-dimensional digital mammography among breast cancer survivors. Materials and Methods In this study, screening mammograms obtained in breast cancer survivors before and after DBT implementation were retrospectively reviewed (March 2008-February 2011 for the digital mammography group; January 2013-December 2017 for the DBT group). Mammograms were interpreted by breast imaging radiologists with the assistance of computer-aided detection. Performance metrics and tumor characteristics between the groups were compared using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The digital mammography and DBT groups were composed of 9019 and 22 887 mammographic examinations, respectively, in 8170 women (mean age, 62 years ± 12 [standard deviation]). In the DBT group, the abnormal interpretation rate was lower (5.8% [1331 of 22 887 examinations] vs 6.2% [563 of 9019 examinations]; odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.91; = .001) and specificity was higher (95.0% [21 502 of 22 644 examinations] vs 94.7% [8424 of 8891 examinations]; OR, 1.23; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.41; = .003) than in the digital mammography group. The cancer detection rates did not differ (8.3 per 1000 examinations with DBT vs 10.6 with digital mammography; OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.02; = .07). The proportions of screening-detected invasive cancers, versus in situ cancers, were similar (74% [140 of 189 cancers] in the DBT group vs 72% [69 of 96 cancers] in the digital mammography group; = .69). Of 86 interval cancers, 58% (50 of 86 cancers) manifested with symptoms, and 33% (28 of 86 cancers) were detected at screening MRI. Conclusion Among breast cancer survivors, screening with digital breast tomosynthesis led to fewer false-positive results and higher specificity but did not affect cancer detection. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Hooley and Butler in this issue.
背景 在乳腺癌幸存者中,无症状(而非有症状)时检测到乳腺癌可改善生存情况;因此,此类患者需要进行影像学监测。数字乳腺断层合成术(digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT)用于筛查,但在高危人群中,关于 DBT 监测的相关数据有限。目的 旨在确定与二维数字乳腺 X 线摄影术相比,DBT 是否可提高乳腺癌幸存者的筛查表现指标。
材料与方法 本研究回顾性分析了乳腺癌幸存者在实施 DBT 前后的筛查乳腺 X 线摄影检查结果(数字乳腺 X 线摄影组:2008 年 3 月至 2011 年 2 月;DBT 组:2013 年 1 月至 2017 年 12 月)。乳腺成像放射科医师在计算机辅助检测的协助下对乳腺 X 线摄影检查进行解读。采用多变量逻辑回归模型比较两组的表现指标和肿瘤特征。
结果 数字乳腺 X 线摄影组和 DBT 组分别纳入 8170 例女性(平均年龄 62 岁±12 岁)的 9019 次和 22 887 次乳腺 X 线摄影检查。在 DBT 组中,异常解读率更低(5.8%[22 887 次检查中的 1331 次] vs 6.2%[9019 次检查中的 563 次];比值比[OR],0.80;95%CI:0.71,0.91; =.001),特异性更高(95.0%[22 644 次检查中的 21 502 次] vs 94.7%[8891 次检查中的 8424 次];OR,1.23;95%CI:1.07,1.41; =.003)。癌症检出率无差异(DBT 组为 8.3/1000 次检查,数字乳腺 X 线摄影组为 10.6/1000 次检查;OR,0.76;95%CI:0.57,1.02; =.07)。筛查检出的浸润性癌与原位癌的比例相似(DBT 组为 74%[189 例癌症中的 140 例],数字乳腺 X 线摄影组为 72%[96 例癌症中的 69 例]; =.69)。在 86 例间隔期癌症中,58%(50 例癌症)表现为症状,33%(28 例癌症)在筛查性 MRI 中检出。
结论 在乳腺癌幸存者中,DBT 筛查导致更少的假阳性结果和更高的特异性,但未影响癌症检出率。
© 2020 RSNA