Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Jan;26(1):184-90.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3. Epub 2015 May 1.

Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study

Kristina Lång  1 , Ingvar Andersson  2 , Aldana Rosso  3 , Anders Tingberg  4 , Pontus Timberg  4 , Sophia Zackrisson  2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study

Kristina Lång et al. Eur Radiol. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening.

Methods: The Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial is a prospective population-based one-arm study with a planned inclusion of 15000 participants; a random sample of women aged 40-74 years eligible for the screening programme. This is an explorative analysis of the first half of the study population (n = 7500). Participants underwent one-view DBT and two-view digital mammography (DM), with independent double reading and scoring. Primary outcome measures were detection rate, recall rate and positive predictive value (PPV). McNemar's test with 95 % confidence intervals was used.

Results: Breast cancer was found in sixty-eight women. Of these, 46 cases were detected by both modalities, 21 by DBT alone and one by DM alone. The detection rate for one-view DBT was 8.9/1000 screens (95 % CI 6.9 to 11.3) and 6.3/1000 screens (4.6 to 8.3) for two-view DM (p < 0.0001). The recall rate after arbitration was 3.8 % (3.3 to 4.2) for DBT and 2.6 % (2.3 to 3.0) for DM (p < 0.0001). The PPV was 24 % for both DBT and DM.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that one-view DBT might be feasible as a stand-alone screening modality.

Key points: One-view DBT as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality has not been investigated. One-view DBT increased the cancer detection rate significantly. The recall rate increased significantly but was still low. Breast cancer screening with one-view DBT as a stand-alone modality seems feasible.

Keywords: Breast Cancer; Diagnostic Imaging; Mammography; Screening; Women’ Health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Reading procedure flowchart. Blinded double reading and scoring in independent reading arms. Each step was scored before proceeding to the next step. A positive score (3–5) in any step qualified the case for arbitration. Prior DM was a two-view DM. DBT = digital breast tomosynthesis, DM = digital mammography, MLO = mediolateral oblique view, CC = craniocaudal view
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Study population flow chart. DBT = digital breast tomosynthesis, DM = digital mammography
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cancer detected by digital breast tomosynthesis alone. A sixty-six-year-old asymptomatic woman recalled for findings suspected only on digital breast tomosynthesis. A 15-mm invasive ductal carcinoma, histological grade 1 and lymph node negative, was diagnosed at histological examination
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–1786. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Laming D, Warren R. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. J Med Screen. 2000;7:24–30. doi: 10.1136/jms.7.1.24. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bochud FO, Valley JF, Verdun FR, et al. Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. Med Phys. 1999;26:1365–1370. doi: 10.1118/1.598632. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168–175. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1298–310. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.06.011. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types