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
Review
. 2021 May:148:14-23.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.01.035. Epub 2021 Mar 9.

Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening

Nehmat Houssami  1 , Sophia Zackrisson  2 , Katrina Blazek  3 , Kylie Hunter  4 , Daniela Bernardi  5 , Kristina Lång  2 , Solveig Hofvind  6
Affiliations
Review

Meta-analysis of prospective studies evaluating breast cancer detection and interval cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography population screening

Nehmat Houssami et al. Eur J Cancer. 2021 May.

Abstract

Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) screening using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to increase cancer detection compared with mammography; however, it is unknown whether DBT impacts interval cancer rate (ICR).

Methods: We systematically identified prospective DBT studies reporting data on screen-detected and interval BCs to perform a study-level meta-analysis of the comparative effect of DBT on ICR in population screening. Meta-analysis of cancer detection rate (CDR), ICR, and the differences between DBT and mammography in CDR and ICR pooled estimates, included random-effects. Sensitivity analysis examined whether study methods (imaging used, comparison group design, interval BC ascertainment) affected pooled estimates.

Results: Five eligible prospective (non-randomised) studies of DBT population screening reported on 129,969 DBT-screened participants and 227,882 mammography-only screens, including follow-up publications reporting interval BC data. Pooled CDR was 9.03/1000 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.53-9.56) for DBT, and 5.95/1000 (95% CI 5.65-6.28) for mammography: the pooled difference in CDR was 3.15/1000 (95% CI 2.53-3.77), and was evident for the detection of invasive and in-situ malignancy. Pooled ICR was 1.56/1000 DBT screens (95% CI 1.22-2.00), and 1.75/1000 mammography screens (95% CI 1.46-2.11): the estimated pooled difference in ICR was -0.15/1000 (95% CI -0.59 to 0.29) and was not substantially altered in several sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Meta-analysis shows consistent evidence that DBT significantly increased CDR compared with mammography screening; however, there was little difference between DBT and mammography in pooled ICR. This could suggest, but does not demonstrate, some over-detection. Meta-analysis using individual participant data, randomised trials and comparative studies quantifying cumulative detection and ICR over repeat DBT screen-rounds would provide valuable evidence to inform screening programs.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Interval cancer; Mammography; Population screening; Tomosynthesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: N. Houssami receives research support through a National Breast Cancer Foundation (NBCF Australia) Breast Cancer Research Leadership Fellowship; the other authors do not have conflict of interest to declare.

LinkOut - more resources