Reducing Unnecessary Biopsies Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound in Dense and Nondense Breasts.
DBT
benign biopsy
breast cancer
breast density
ultrasound
Journal
Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 08 2022
04 08 2022
Historique:
received:
21
06
2022
revised:
29
07
2022
accepted:
02
08
2022
entrez:
25
8
2022
pubmed:
26
8
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Aim: To compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound in women recalled for assessment after a positive screening mammogram and assess the potential for each of these tools to reduce unnecessary biopsies. Methods: This data linkage study included 538 women recalled for assessment from January 2017 to December 2019. The association between the recalled mammographic abnormalities and breast density was analysed using the chi-square independence test. Relative risks and the number of recalled cases requiring DBT and ultrasound assessment to prevent one unnecessary biopsy were compared using the McNemar test. Results: Breast density significantly influenced recall decisions (p < 0.001). Ultrasound showed greater potential to decrease unnecessary biopsies than DBT: in entirely fatty (21% vs. 5%; p = 0.04); scattered fibroglandular (23% vs. 10%; p = 0.003); heterogeneously dense (34% vs. 7%; p < 0.001) and extremely dense (39% vs. 9%; p < 0.001) breasts. The number of benign cases needing assessment to prevent one unnecessary biopsy was significantly lower with ultrasound than DBT in heterogeneously dense (1.8 vs. 7; p < 0.001) and extremely dense (1.9 vs. 5.1; p = 0.03) breasts. Conclusion: Women with dense breasts are more likely to be recalled for assessment and have a false-positive biopsy. Women with dense breasts benefit more from ultrasound assessment than from DBT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36005173
pii: curroncol29080435
doi: 10.3390/curroncol29080435
pmc: PMC9406307
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5508-5516Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Nov;205(5):1143-8
pubmed: 26496565
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Jan;110:81-87
pubmed: 30599878
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):493-502
pubmed: 22007043
Cancer. 2017 Jan 1;123(2):219-227
pubmed: 27683209
Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep;45(5):831-43, vii
pubmed: 17888772
Breast. 2011 Feb;20(1):56-61
pubmed: 20691591
Radiology. 2020 Feb;294(2):247-255
pubmed: 31793847
Radiol Res Pract. 2019 Feb 03;2019:5045908
pubmed: 30886748
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):727-37, W237-42
pubmed: 19920273
Eur J Cancer. 2011 May;47(7):1021-6
pubmed: 21211962
Radiology. 2021 Mar;298(3):568-575
pubmed: 33434108
Radiology. 2007 Jul;244(1):87-93
pubmed: 17581897
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2016 Mar;47(1):55-59
pubmed: 31047165
Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):376-83
pubmed: 18227537
Radiology. 2016 Aug;280(2):379-86
pubmed: 26878225
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Apr 3;146(7):502-10
pubmed: 17404352
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018 Feb 26;19(2):291-301
pubmed: 29479948
Radiology. 2016 Mar;278(3):698-706
pubmed: 26458206
J Med Screen. 1995;2(4):191-4
pubmed: 8719147
Radiographics. 2015 Jul-Aug;35(4):975-90
pubmed: 26024062
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;104:39-46
pubmed: 30316869
Radiology. 2015 Dec;277(3):697-706
pubmed: 26176654
Insights Imaging. 2021 Apr 20;12(1):53
pubmed: 33877461
World J Surg. 2002 Mar;26(3):290-6
pubmed: 11865363
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar 9;34(16):1882-1888
pubmed: 26962097
JAMA. 2012 Apr 4;307(13):1394-404
pubmed: 22474203
Clin Radiol. 2003 Jan;58(1):54-62
pubmed: 12565206
Br J Cancer. 2011 Nov 22;105(11):1669-75
pubmed: 22052156
Radiology. 1995 Jul;196(1):123-34
pubmed: 7784555
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Jan;28(1):22-31
pubmed: 30206060
Radiology. 2019 May;291(2):310-317
pubmed: 30888932
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Aug;82(8):1227-30
pubmed: 23465737