Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study
Purpose: To compare the performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Digital Mammography (DM) in patients clinically referred for breast imaging. Methods: Diagnostic performance of DBT (in 2016, after transition to DBT) was compared with DM (in 2011, before the transition) in consecutively...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Cancer Treatment and Research Communications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294225000036 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823864264096481280 |
|---|---|
| author | Naomi Noguchi Farzaneh Boroumand Katy Bell Margaret Pooley Aileen Zeng Lauren Arnold Armando Teixeira-Pinto Nehmat Houssami |
| author_facet | Naomi Noguchi Farzaneh Boroumand Katy Bell Margaret Pooley Aileen Zeng Lauren Arnold Armando Teixeira-Pinto Nehmat Houssami |
| author_sort | Naomi Noguchi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: To compare the performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Digital Mammography (DM) in patients clinically referred for breast imaging. Methods: Diagnostic performance of DBT (in 2016, after transition to DBT) was compared with DM (in 2011, before the transition) in consecutively referred patients (N = 10,742 exams). Reference standard was outcomes from all tests including histopathology and clinical review within the same year. Primary outcome was area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Results: Cancer rates did not differ between DBT (1.72 % (CI 1.38–2.15 %)) and DM (1.71 % (CI 1.40–2.08 %)). AUC-ROC was similar for DBT (0.91 (CI 0.87–0.95)) and DM (CI 0.91 (0.88–0.95)). Abnormal interpretation rate for DBT was 2.83 % (CI 2.38–3.36 %) and for DM it was 2.17 % (CI 1.82–2.58 %), and the biopsy rate for DBT was 8.2 % (CI 7.4–9.0 %) and for DM it was 9.9 % (CI 9.1–10.6 %)).In patients with dense breasts (vs overall cohort) AUC-ROC and sensitivity were lower for both DM and DBT. Within this subgroup, AUC-ROC for DBT was 0.90 (CI 0.84–0.95) and for DM it was 0.85 (CI 0.79–0.92), sensitivity was 78.2 % (CI 65.0–88.2 %) for DBT and 64.8 % (CI 50.6–77.3 %) for DM, and ultrasound was accurate whether it was used with DBT (AUC-ROC 0.95 (CI 0.91 – 0.99)) or DM (AUC-ROC 0.95 (CI 0.90 – 0.99)) Conclusion: In clinically referred patients, diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic yield were similar between DBT and DM. DBT may have a higher abnormal interpretation rate but a lower biopsy rate. DBT may be more accurate than DM in dense breasts. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a45c232306c346629fb46c4317d63b99 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2468-2942 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cancer Treatment and Research Communications |
| spelling | doaj-art-a45c232306c346629fb46c4317d63b992025-02-09T05:00:47ZengElsevierCancer Treatment and Research Communications2468-29422024-01-0142100865Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort studyNaomi Noguchi0Farzaneh Boroumand1Katy Bell2Margaret Pooley3Aileen Zeng4Lauren Arnold5Armando Teixeira-Pinto6Nehmat Houssami7School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Corresponding author at: Room 301C Edward Ford Building, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaSydney Breast Clinic, Sydney, AustraliaSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney – a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, AustraliaSydney Breast Clinic, Sydney, AustraliaSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney – a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, AustraliaPurpose: To compare the performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with Digital Mammography (DM) in patients clinically referred for breast imaging. Methods: Diagnostic performance of DBT (in 2016, after transition to DBT) was compared with DM (in 2011, before the transition) in consecutively referred patients (N = 10,742 exams). Reference standard was outcomes from all tests including histopathology and clinical review within the same year. Primary outcome was area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Results: Cancer rates did not differ between DBT (1.72 % (CI 1.38–2.15 %)) and DM (1.71 % (CI 1.40–2.08 %)). AUC-ROC was similar for DBT (0.91 (CI 0.87–0.95)) and DM (CI 0.91 (0.88–0.95)). Abnormal interpretation rate for DBT was 2.83 % (CI 2.38–3.36 %) and for DM it was 2.17 % (CI 1.82–2.58 %), and the biopsy rate for DBT was 8.2 % (CI 7.4–9.0 %) and for DM it was 9.9 % (CI 9.1–10.6 %)).In patients with dense breasts (vs overall cohort) AUC-ROC and sensitivity were lower for both DM and DBT. Within this subgroup, AUC-ROC for DBT was 0.90 (CI 0.84–0.95) and for DM it was 0.85 (CI 0.79–0.92), sensitivity was 78.2 % (CI 65.0–88.2 %) for DBT and 64.8 % (CI 50.6–77.3 %) for DM, and ultrasound was accurate whether it was used with DBT (AUC-ROC 0.95 (CI 0.91 – 0.99)) or DM (AUC-ROC 0.95 (CI 0.90 – 0.99)) Conclusion: In clinically referred patients, diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic yield were similar between DBT and DM. DBT may have a higher abnormal interpretation rate but a lower biopsy rate. DBT may be more accurate than DM in dense breasts.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294225000036Breast cancerDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)Digital mammography (DM)diagnostic accuracyDense breasts, Breast symptoms |
| spellingShingle | Naomi Noguchi Farzaneh Boroumand Katy Bell Margaret Pooley Aileen Zeng Lauren Arnold Armando Teixeira-Pinto Nehmat Houssami Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study Cancer Treatment and Research Communications Breast cancer Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) Digital mammography (DM) diagnostic accuracy Dense breasts, Breast symptoms |
| title | Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study |
| title_full | Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study |
| title_fullStr | Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study |
| title_short | Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging – a retrospective cohort study |
| title_sort | diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis dbt versus digital mammography dm in a population clinically referred for breast imaging a retrospective cohort study |
| topic | Breast cancer Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) Digital mammography (DM) diagnostic accuracy Dense breasts, Breast symptoms |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294225000036 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT naominoguchi diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT farzanehboroumand diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT katybell diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT margaretpooley diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT aileenzeng diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT laurenarnold diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT armandoteixeirapinto diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy AT nehmathoussami diagnosticperformanceofdigitalbreasttomosynthesisdbtversusdigitalmammographydminapopulationclinicallyreferredforbreastimagingaretrospectivecohortstudy |