Comparing the performance of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with a history of breast cancer: A retrospective study

E Nia; M Patel; M Kapoor; M Guirguis; F Perez; R Bassett; R Candelaria

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2023.07.001

Comparing the performance of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with a history of breast cancer: A retrospective study

Radiography (Lond). 2023 Oct;29(6):975-979. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2023.07.001. Epub 2023 Aug 11.

Authors

E Nia¹, M Patel², M Kapoor², M Guirguis², F Perez², R Bassett³, R Candelaria²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
² Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
³ Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

PMID: 37572571
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2023.07.001

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of 2D (FFDM) against 3D (FFDM plus DBT) examinations in the post-treatment surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer survivors.

Methods: A list of women with a history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography (2D or 3D) from 5/2017 to 5/2020 was retrieved. A total of 20,210 examinations were identified and performance metrics were compared.

Results: There were no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) (p = 0.38), recall rate (RR) (p = 0.087), or positive predictive value (PPV) (p = 0.74) between 2D vs. 3D examinations. Stratification by breast tissue identified no statistically significant difference in CDR (p = 0.581 and p = 0.428), RR (p = 0.230 and p = 0.205), or PPV (p = 0.908 and p = 0.721) between fatty/scattered and heterogeneous/extremely dense breast tissue when comparing 2D vs 3D examinations. Stratification by age did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 2D vs. 3D examinations in the 60-69 years group (p = 0.021). Stratification by race did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 3D vs. 2D examinations in white women (p = 0.036). Stratification by laterality (bilateral vs. unilateral post mastectomy) did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased in 2D vs. 3D examinations in unilateral studies (p = 0.009).

Conclusion: For asymptomatic women with a history of breast cancer, there is no evidence that the addition of DBT to FFDM improves CDR, RR, or PPV.

Implications for practice: More studies are needed concerning screening methodologies supplementing FFDM in the screening regimens of breast cancer survivors.

Keywords: 2D mammography; 3D mammography; Breast cancer; Breast cancer survivor; Tomosynthesis.

MeSH terms

Breast Density
Breast Neoplasms* / diagnosis
Early Detection of Cancer / methods
Female
Humans
Mammography / methods
Mass Screening
Mastectomy
Retrospective Studies