Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 164, Issue 3, pp 557–569 | Cite as

Benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography for breast cancer screening focused on cancer characteristics: a meta-analysis

  • Seong Jong Yun
  • Chang-Woo Ryu
  • Sun Jung Rhee
  • Jung Kyu Ryu
  • Ji Young Oh
Review

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluated the benefit of adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) compared to FFDM alone for breast cancer detection, focusing on cancer characteristics.

Methods

We searched electronic databases and relevant references for published studies comparing DBT plus FFDM to FFDM alone for breast cancer screening. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) for various pathologic findings were determined using random effects models.

Results

Eleven eligible studies were included. Pooled RRs showed a greater cancer detection for DBT plus FFDM than for FFDM alone for invasive cancer (1.327; 95% CI, 1.168–1.508), stage T1 (1.388; 95% CI, 1.137–1.695), nodal-negative (1.451; 95% CI, 1.209–1.742), all histologic grades (grade I, 1.812; grade II/III, 1.403), and histologic types of invasive cancer (ductal, 1.437; lobular, 1.901). However, adding DBT did not increase for detection of carcinoma in situ (1.198; 95% CI, 0.942–1.524), stage ≥T2 (1.391; 95% CI, 0.895–2.163), or nodal-positive cancer (1.336; 95% CI, 0.921–1.938). Heterogeneity among studies was not significant in any subset analysis.

Conclusions

Adding DBT to FFDM enabled detection of early invasive breast cancer that might have been missed with FFDM alone. Knowing which cancer characteristic DBT detects may allow it to play a complementary role in predicting long-term patient outcomes and facilitate treatment planning.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms Early detection of cancer Digital breast tomosynthesis Mammography Meta-analysis Preventive health services 

Abbreviations

CI

Confidence interval

DBT

Digital breast tomosynthesis

CIS

Carcinoma in situ

DM

Digital mammography

FFDM

Full-field digital mammography

IDC

Invasive ductal cancer

ILC

Invasive lobular cancer

MBTST

Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

OTST

Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

QUADAS-2

Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2

RR

Risk ratio

STORM

Screening with tomosynthesis OR standard mammography

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from Kyung Hee University in 2016 (KHU-20160695).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Role of funding source

The sponsors had no role in the design of the meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the work for publication. The researchers performed this work independently of the funding sources.

Statement of human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10549_2017_4298_MOESM1_ESM.doc (56 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 56 kb)
10549_2017_4298_MOESM2_ESM.tif (274 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 274 kb)
10549_2017_4298_MOESM3_ESM.tif (291 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 291 kb)
10549_2017_4298_MOESM4_ESM.tif (283 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 282 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Houssami N (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Exp Rev Med Devices 12:377–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duncan KA, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, Deans HE (1998) Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn? Clin Radiol 53:29–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roth RG, Maidment AD, Weinstein SP, Roth SO, Conant EF (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics 34:E89–E102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cianfrocca M, Goldstein LJ (2004) Prognostic and predictive factors in early-stage breast cancer. Oncologist 9:606–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17:1105–1113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M et al (2014) Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju316 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2015) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:337–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharpe RE Jr, Venkataraman S, Phillips J et al (2016) Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program. Radiology 278:698–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Powell JL, Hawley JR, Lipari AM, Yildiz VO, Erdal BS, Carkaci S (2017) Impact of the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to standard 2D digital screening mammography on the rates of patient recall, cancer detection, and recommendations for short-term follow-up. Acad Radiol 24:302–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P et al (2014) Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 50:1232–1238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmidt RL, Factor RE (2013) Understanding sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:558–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL et al (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:109–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O’Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA (2001) Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 219:192–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Joshua HK, Hirst C (2000) Breast cancers invisible on mammography. Aust NZ J Surg 70:162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S (1998) The false-negative mammogram. Radiographics 18:1137–1154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hollingsworth AB, Taylor LD, Rhodes DC (1993) Establishing a histologic basis for false-negative mammograms. Am J Surg 166:643–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ganott MA, Harris KM, Klaman HM, Keeling TL (1999) Analysis of false-negative cancer cases identified with a mammography audit. Breast J 5:166–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang WS, Hardesty L, Borgstede J, Takahashi J, Sams S (2016) Breast cancers found with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of pathology and histologic grade. Breast J 22:651–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 277:697–706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings. Breast J 21:538–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Graduate SchoolKyung Hee UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations