Diagnostic Management Pathways for Workup of Abnormal Screening With Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Louise M Henderson, Weiwei Zhu, Tracy Onega, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana L Miglioretti, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Brian L Sprague, Donald L Weaver, Anna N A Tosteson, Christoph I Lee
{"title":"Diagnostic Management Pathways for Workup of Abnormal Screening With Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.","authors":"Louise M Henderson, Weiwei Zhu, Tracy Onega, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana L Miglioretti, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Brian L Sprague, Donald L Weaver, Anna N A Tosteson, Christoph I Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our objective was to assess the transition from digital mammography (DM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening, the authors compared diagnostic workup type and frequency, workup pathways, and time to resolution of abnormal screening between DBT and DM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cohort study included screening examinations with an abnormal results from 2011 to 2020 at 107 facilities across six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Diagnostic workup included diagnostic DM, diagnostic DBT, ultrasound, MRI, and biopsy within 90 days of the abnormal result on screening mammography. Workup modalities and number of workup procedures were compared using differences in proportion and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Time to diagnostic resolution between DBT and DM was compared using a log-rank test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 77,123 DBT and 197,589 abnormal DM screening examinations with abnormal results, the number of imaging modalities in the diagnostic pathway was similar. The first workup procedure was more often ultrasound after abnormal results on DBT compared with DM (21.1% versus 4.7%). Biopsy rates were higher for DBT versus DM (16.2% versus 14.0%; difference in proportions = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.97-2.58) with biopsies after DM versus DBT more likely surgical versus fine-needle aspiration or core (5.8% versus 3.2%; difference in proportions = 2.6; 95% CI, 2.19-3.01), resulting in a rate of excision biopsy per 1,000 screens with abnormal findings of 5.1 for DBT and 8.0 for DM. Time to diagnostic resolution was similar (median, 10 days).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study revealed differences in the type of diagnostic workup pathways after abnormal results on screening DBT versus DM. Although the biopsy rate was higher after abnormal results on DBT, the biopsy type may be more invasive (surgical excision) after abnormal results on DM.</p>","PeriodicalId":73968,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Our objective was to assess the transition from digital mammography (DM) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening, the authors compared diagnostic workup type and frequency, workup pathways, and time to resolution of abnormal screening between DBT and DM.

Methods: This cohort study included screening examinations with an abnormal results from 2011 to 2020 at 107 facilities across six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Diagnostic workup included diagnostic DM, diagnostic DBT, ultrasound, MRI, and biopsy within 90 days of the abnormal result on screening mammography. Workup modalities and number of workup procedures were compared using differences in proportion and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Time to diagnostic resolution between DBT and DM was compared using a log-rank test.

Results: Among 77,123 DBT and 197,589 abnormal DM screening examinations with abnormal results, the number of imaging modalities in the diagnostic pathway was similar. The first workup procedure was more often ultrasound after abnormal results on DBT compared with DM (21.1% versus 4.7%). Biopsy rates were higher for DBT versus DM (16.2% versus 14.0%; difference in proportions = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.97-2.58) with biopsies after DM versus DBT more likely surgical versus fine-needle aspiration or core (5.8% versus 3.2%; difference in proportions = 2.6; 95% CI, 2.19-3.01), resulting in a rate of excision biopsy per 1,000 screens with abnormal findings of 5.1 for DBT and 8.0 for DM. Time to diagnostic resolution was similar (median, 10 days).

Conclusions: This study revealed differences in the type of diagnostic workup pathways after abnormal results on screening DBT versus DM. Although the biopsy rate was higher after abnormal results on DBT, the biopsy type may be more invasive (surgical excision) after abnormal results on DM.

数字乳房x线照相术与数字乳腺断层合成术异常筛查的诊断管理途径。
目的:为了评估从数字化乳房x线摄影(DM)到数字化乳房断层合成(DBT)筛查的转变,我们比较了异常筛查DBT和DBT的诊断检查类型和频率、检查途径以及解决时间。方法:本队列研究包括2011-2020年在6个乳腺癌监测联盟登记处的107家机构进行的异常结果的筛查检查。诊断检查包括诊断性糖尿病、诊断性DBT、超声、磁共振成像以及异常筛查后90天内的活检。我们使用比例和95%置信区间(95% ci)的差异来比较检查方式和检查程序的数量。用log-rank检验比较DBT和DM的诊断解决时间。结果:在77,123例异常DBT和197,589例异常DM筛查中,诊断路径上的成像方式数量相似。与DM异常患者相比,DBT异常患者的第一次检查更多的是超声检查(21.1%对4.7%)。DBT的活检率高于DM (16.2% vs. 14.0%,比例差异=2.27 95%CI:1.97-2.58), DM后的活检率高于DBT后的活检,手术比FNA/core更有可能(5.8% vs.3.2%,比例差异=2.6,95%CI:2.19-3.01),导致每1000个异常筛查中,DBT的切除活检率为5.1,DM为8.0。诊断时间相似(中位数=10天)。结论:我们发现异常筛查DBT与DM后诊断途径的类型存在差异。虽然异常DBT后活检率更高,但异常DM筛查后活检类型可能更具侵入性(手术切除)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信