TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature
AU - Carbonaro, Luca A.
AU - Di Leo, Giovanni
AU - Clauser, Paola
AU - Trimboli, Rubina M.
AU - Verardi, Nicola
AU - Fedeli, Maria P.
AU - Girometti, Rossano
AU - Tafà, Alfredo
AU - Bruscoli, Paola
AU - Saguatti, Gianni
AU - Bazzocchi, Massimo
AU - Sardanelli, Francesco
PY - 2016/4/1
Y1 - 2016/4/1
N2 - Objectives To estimate the impact on recall rate (RR) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) associated with digital mammography (DM + DBT), compared to DM alone, evaluate the impact of double reading (DR) and review the literature. Methods Ethics committees approved this multicenter study. Patients gave informed consent. Women recalled from population-based screening reading were included. Reference standard was histology and/or ≥1 year follow up. Negative multiple assessment was considered for patients lost at follow up. Two blinded readers (R1, R2) evaluated first DM and subsequently DM + DBT. RR, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), were calculated for R1, R2, and DR. Cohen κ and χ2 were used for R1-R2 agreement and RR related to breast density. Results We included 280 cases (41 malignancies, 66 benign lesions, and 173 negative examinations). The RR reduction was 43% (R1), 58% (R2), 43% (DR). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were: 93%, 67%, 71%, 33%, 98% for R1; 88%, 73%, 75%, 36%, 97% for R2; 98%, 55%, 61%, 27%, 99% for DR. The agreement was higher for DM + DBT (κ=0.459 versus κ=0.234). Reduction in RR was independent from breast density (p = 0.992). Conclusion DBT was confirmed to reduce RR, as shown by 13 of 15 previous studies (reported reduction 6-82%, median 31%). This reduction is confirmed when using DR. DBT allows an increased inter-reader agreement.
AB - Objectives To estimate the impact on recall rate (RR) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) associated with digital mammography (DM + DBT), compared to DM alone, evaluate the impact of double reading (DR) and review the literature. Methods Ethics committees approved this multicenter study. Patients gave informed consent. Women recalled from population-based screening reading were included. Reference standard was histology and/or ≥1 year follow up. Negative multiple assessment was considered for patients lost at follow up. Two blinded readers (R1, R2) evaluated first DM and subsequently DM + DBT. RR, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), were calculated for R1, R2, and DR. Cohen κ and χ2 were used for R1-R2 agreement and RR related to breast density. Results We included 280 cases (41 malignancies, 66 benign lesions, and 173 negative examinations). The RR reduction was 43% (R1), 58% (R2), 43% (DR). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were: 93%, 67%, 71%, 33%, 98% for R1; 88%, 73%, 75%, 36%, 97% for R2; 98%, 55%, 61%, 27%, 99% for DR. The agreement was higher for DM + DBT (κ=0.459 versus κ=0.234). Reduction in RR was independent from breast density (p = 0.992). Conclusion DBT was confirmed to reduce RR, as shown by 13 of 15 previous studies (reported reduction 6-82%, median 31%). This reduction is confirmed when using DR. DBT allows an increased inter-reader agreement.
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)
KW - Digital mammography (DM)
KW - population based
KW - Recall rate
KW - Screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960351749&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960351749&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.004
DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.004
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84960351749
SN - 0720-048X
VL - 85
SP - 808
EP - 814
JO - European Journal of Radiology
JF - European Journal of Radiology
IS - 4
ER -