Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2025
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
Assessing Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Impact on Early Cancer Detection: Insights from Consecutive Screening
Annika Jögi1, Kristin Johnson1, Sofia Wittgren1
1From the Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Skåne University Hospital, Klinikgatan 5, 222 42 Lund, Sweden (A.J.); Translational Cancer Research, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University Cancer Center at Medicon Village, Lund University, Lund, Sweden (A.J.); Radiology Diagnostics, Department of Translational Medicine and Department of Imaging and Physiology (K.J., V.S., H.T., J.O., I.A., S.Z., P.R.B.) and Department of Radiation Physics (P.R.B.), Lund University, Skåne University Hospital; and Department of Imaging and Physiology (K.J., V.S., J.O., I.A., S.Z.) and Department of Rheumatology Lund (S.W.), Lund University Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Rheumatology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden (S.W.); and Clinical Studies Sweden-Forum South, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden (A.Å.).
Abstract:
Background Analysis of how digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening affects consecutive screening performance is important to estimate its future value in screening. Purpose To evaluate whether DBT contributes to early detection of breast cancer by assessing cancer detection rates (CDRs), including the fraction of invasive cancers and cancer subtypes in consecutive routine digital mammography (DM). Materials and Methods The paired prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST) was performed between January 2010 and February 2015. Participating women underwent one-view DBT and two-view DM at one screening occasion. In this secondary analysis, women were followed up through their first (DM1) and second (DM2) consecutive two-view DM screening rounds after MBTST participation. Cancer diagnoses were identified by referencing records. A logistic regression model, adjusted for age, was used to calculate the odds of luminal A-like cancers with use of the MBTST as reference. Results There were 14 848 final participants in the MBTST (median age, 57 years [IQR, 49-65 years]). Of those, 12 876 women were screened in DM1 (median age, 58 years [IQR, 50-66 years]) and 10 883 were screened in DM2 (median age, 59 years [IQR, 51-67 years]). Compared with CDRs in the trial of 6.5 of 1000 women (95% CI: 5.2, 7.9) for DM and 8.7 of 1000 women (95% CI: 7.3, 10.3) for DBT, the CDR was lower in DM1 (4.6 of 1000 women [95% CI: 3.6, 5.9]) and DM2 (5.3 of 1000 women [95% CI: 4.1, 6.9]). The proportion of invasive cancers was 84.9% (118 of 139 cancers) in the MBTST; the corresponding numbers were 66% (39 of 59 cancers) for DM1 and 83% (50 of 60 cancers) for DM2. The odds of luminal A-like cancers were lower in DM1 at 0.28 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.66 [P = .004]) but not in DM2 at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.40, 1.58 [P = .52]) versus screening in the MBTST. Conclusion CDR and the fraction of invasive cancers were lower in DM1 and then increased in DM2 following the MBTST, indicating earlier cancer detection mainly due to increased detection of luminal A-like cancers in DBT screening. Clinical trials registration no. NCT01091545 © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Hooley and Philpotts in this issue.
