Is There a Difference in the Diagnostic Outcomes of Calcifications Initially Identified on Synthetic Tomosynthesis Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography Screening?

To compare the outcomes of microcalcifications recalled on full-field digital (FFDM) and FFDM and combined tomosynthesis (Combo) to synthetic (SM) screening mammograms. We reviewed medical records, radiology, and pathology reports of all patients found to have abnormal calcifications requiring further evaluation on mammography screening at our institution between 11/1/2016-11/1/2018 and collected patient demographics, calcification morphology and distribution, and mammography technique (SM, FFDM, or Combo). We used biopsy pathology or at least 1-year imaging follow-up to establish overall diagnostic outcome (benign or malignant). Fisher's exact test was used to compare validation rates at diagnostic work-up, BI-RADS category, and final outcome of calcifications identified on each screening technique. T-test was used for continuous variables. Of 699 calcifications in 596 women recalled, 176 (30%) of 596 were from SM and 420 (70%) FFDM/Combo. There was a significantly higher rate of calcifications unvalidated at diagnostic work-up for SM compared to FFDM/Combo (0.8% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001). SM calcifications were more likely to receive BI-RADS 2/3 at diagnostic work-up compared to FFDM/Combo ones (55% vs. 42%, p = 0.003). Of 346 (49%) calcifications that underwent biopsy, 88 (25%) were malignant (36% of SM vs. 22% of FFDM/Combo, OR:0.5 [95% CI: 0.3, 0.8] p = 0.01). Of 622 lesions with established diagnostic outcome, there was no difference between having an overall benign or malignant outcome between SM and FFDM/Combo (17% vs. 13%, OR: 0.8 [95% Cl: 0.5, 1.2] p = 0.27). Synthetic tomosynthesis screening results in a higher rate of false positive and unvalidated calcification recalls compared to FFDM/Combo.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.