• Tone Hovda, Åsne S Holen, Kristina Lång, Judy Lynn Albertsen, Hilde Bjørndal, Siri H B Brandal, Kristine Kleivi Sahlberg, Per Skaane, Pål Suhrke, and Solveig Hofvind.
• From the Departments of Radiology (T.H., H.B.) and Research (K.K.S.), Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway; Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (T.H.); Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway (Å.S.H., S.H.); Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden (K.L.); Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland (K.L.); Departments of Radiology (J.L.A.) and Pathology (P. Suhrke), Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway; Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway (S.H.B.B., P. Skaane); and Department of Life Sciences and Health, Faculty of Health Science, Oslo Metropolitan University, PO 5313 Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway (S.H.).
• Radiology. 2020 Feb 1; 294 (2): 256-264.

AbstractBackground Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015 (baseline). All women, except nonattendees, women with breast cancer, and those who exceeded the upper age limit, were consecutively screened with DM after 2 years. Interval breast cancer, sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for women screened at baseline. Recall, screen-detected breast cancer, and positive predictive value were analyzed for consecutively screened women. A χ2 test, t test (P < .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a significant difference), and binomial regression model were used to analyze differences across groups. Results A total of 92 404 women who underwent baseline screening (mean age, 59 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) were evaluated; 34 641 women in the study group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DBT and SM and 57 763 women in the control group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DM. A total of 26 474 women in the study group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) and 45 543 women in the control group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) were consecutively screened with DM. Rates of interval breast cancer were 2.0 per 1000 screened women in the study group and 1.5 per 1000 screened women in the control group (P = .12). No differences in histopathologic characteristics of interval breast cancer were observed. In the consecutive screening round, rates of screen-detected breast cancer were 3.9 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Rates of histologic grade 1 invasive cancer were 0.5 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 1.3 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Conclusion No differences in interval breast cancer rates or tumor characteristics were observed in women screened with DBT and SM compared with women screened with DM. Higher rates of low-grade screen-detected tumors were observed in the control group at consecutive screening. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

15 keywords...

hide…