False-Positive Recall and False-Positive Biopsy Rates in Mammography Screening: A TOSYMA Trial Subanalysis.

IF 15.2 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Radiology Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1148/radiol.251014
Stefanie Weigel, Hans-Werner Hense, Veronika Weyer-Elberich, Joachim Gerß, Walter Heindel
{"title":"False-Positive Recall and False-Positive Biopsy Rates in Mammography Screening: A TOSYMA Trial Subanalysis.","authors":"Stefanie Weigel, Hans-Werner Hense, Veronika Weyer-Elberich, Joachim Gerß, Walter Heindel","doi":"10.1148/radiol.251014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background False-positive results may negatively affect participants and diminish the efficiency of mammography screening programs. Purpose To assess whether the higher breast cancer detection rate with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized mammography (SM) compared with digital mammography (DM) in the randomized TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) trial comes with higher false-positive rates. Materials and Methods The TOSYMA trial was conducted from July 2018 to December 2020 in women aged 50-70 years (mean age, 57.7 years ± 5.6 [SD]), with 1:1 allocation to the DBT plus SM or DM study arm (NCT03377036). True- and false-positive recall rates, false-positive biopsy rates, and positive predictive values of recalls and biopsies performed were compared per arm. Women with false-positive findings were followed up for 24 months. The analyses were strictly exploratory. Results There were 49 762 women in the DM arm and 49 715 in the DBT plus SM arm. The recall rate was 48.6 per 1000 women screened (2416 of 49 715) with DBT plus SM and 49.9 per 1000 women screened (2483 of 49 762) with DM. The true-positive recall rate of DBT plus SM (8.4 per 1000 women screened; 416 of 49 715) was higher than that of DM (6.2 per 1000 women screened; 306 of 49 762), a difference of 2.2 per 1000 women screened (CI: 0.4, 4.0). The false-positive recall rate was lower with DBT plus SM (40.2 per 1000 women screened; 2000 of 49 715) than with DM (43.7 per 1000 women screened [2177 of 49 762]; difference: -3.5 per 1000 women screened [CI: -7.8, 0.7]), particularly in the first screening round (DBT plus SM: 94.0 per 1000 women; DM: 109.6 per 1000 women screened; difference, -15.6 per 1000 women screened [CI: -31.0, -0.2]). The positive predictive value of recall was higher with DBT plus SM (17.2%; 416 of 2416 women recalled) than with DM (12.3% [306 of 2483 women recalled]; difference, 4.9% [CI: 1.5, 8.3]). The false-positive biopsy rate (7.8 per 1000 women screened; 388 of 49 715) was higher with DBT plus SM (1.8 per 1000 women screened; CI: 0.0, 3.6), and the positive predictive value of biopsies performed was 51.7% (416 of 804 women with biopsies performed; difference, 1.1%; CI: -7.9, 10.2). Interval cancers after false-positive recalls were rare (five with DBT plus SM and two with DM). Conclusion This exploratory analysis of the large randomized TOSYMA trial indicates that DBT plus SM showed lower false-positive recall rates than DM, especially in first-round screening participants. Mildly raised false-positive biopsies of DBT plus SM were compensated by more detected breast cancers. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT03377036 © RSNA, 2025 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> See also the editorial by Mesurolle in this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":20896,"journal":{"name":"Radiology","volume":"316 3","pages":"e251014"},"PeriodicalIF":15.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.251014","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background False-positive results may negatively affect participants and diminish the efficiency of mammography screening programs. Purpose To assess whether the higher breast cancer detection rate with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus synthesized mammography (SM) compared with digital mammography (DM) in the randomized TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) trial comes with higher false-positive rates. Materials and Methods The TOSYMA trial was conducted from July 2018 to December 2020 in women aged 50-70 years (mean age, 57.7 years ± 5.6 [SD]), with 1:1 allocation to the DBT plus SM or DM study arm (NCT03377036). True- and false-positive recall rates, false-positive biopsy rates, and positive predictive values of recalls and biopsies performed were compared per arm. Women with false-positive findings were followed up for 24 months. The analyses were strictly exploratory. Results There were 49 762 women in the DM arm and 49 715 in the DBT plus SM arm. The recall rate was 48.6 per 1000 women screened (2416 of 49 715) with DBT plus SM and 49.9 per 1000 women screened (2483 of 49 762) with DM. The true-positive recall rate of DBT plus SM (8.4 per 1000 women screened; 416 of 49 715) was higher than that of DM (6.2 per 1000 women screened; 306 of 49 762), a difference of 2.2 per 1000 women screened (CI: 0.4, 4.0). The false-positive recall rate was lower with DBT plus SM (40.2 per 1000 women screened; 2000 of 49 715) than with DM (43.7 per 1000 women screened [2177 of 49 762]; difference: -3.5 per 1000 women screened [CI: -7.8, 0.7]), particularly in the first screening round (DBT plus SM: 94.0 per 1000 women; DM: 109.6 per 1000 women screened; difference, -15.6 per 1000 women screened [CI: -31.0, -0.2]). The positive predictive value of recall was higher with DBT plus SM (17.2%; 416 of 2416 women recalled) than with DM (12.3% [306 of 2483 women recalled]; difference, 4.9% [CI: 1.5, 8.3]). The false-positive biopsy rate (7.8 per 1000 women screened; 388 of 49 715) was higher with DBT plus SM (1.8 per 1000 women screened; CI: 0.0, 3.6), and the positive predictive value of biopsies performed was 51.7% (416 of 804 women with biopsies performed; difference, 1.1%; CI: -7.9, 10.2). Interval cancers after false-positive recalls were rare (five with DBT plus SM and two with DM). Conclusion This exploratory analysis of the large randomized TOSYMA trial indicates that DBT plus SM showed lower false-positive recall rates than DM, especially in first-round screening participants. Mildly raised false-positive biopsies of DBT plus SM were compensated by more detected breast cancers. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT03377036 © RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mesurolle in this issue.

乳房x线摄影筛查中的假阳性回忆率和假阳性活检率:TOSYMA试验亚分析。
假阳性结果可能会对参与者产生负面影响,并降低乳房x光检查程序的效率。目的评价在随机化tomosynthesis + synthetic mammography (TOSYMA)试验中,数字乳腺断层合成(DBT) +合成乳房x线摄影(SM)的乳腺癌检出率是否高于数字乳房x线摄影(DM),其假阳性率是否更高。TOSYMA试验于2018年7月至2020年12月在50-70岁(平均年龄57.7岁±5.6 [SD])的女性中进行,以1:1的比例分配到DBT + SM或DM研究组(NCT03377036)。比较各组的真阳性和假阳性回忆率、假阳性活检率以及回忆和活检的阳性预测值。假阳性结果的妇女随访24个月。这些分析完全是探索性的。结果DM组49762例,DBT + SM组49715例。DBT + SM的召回率为48.6 / 1000 (2416 / 49 715),DM的召回率为49.9 / 1000(2483 / 49 762)。DBT + SM的真阳性召回率(8.4 / 1000,416 / 49 715)高于DM的真阳性召回率(6.2 / 1000,306 / 49 762),差异为2.2 / 1000 (CI: 0.4, 4.0)。DBT + SM组的假阳性回忆率(每1000名接受筛查的女性中有40.2名;49 715名中有2000名)低于DM组(每1000名接受筛查的女性中有43.7名[49 762名中有2177名];差异:每1000名接受筛查的女性中有3.5名[CI: -7.8, 0.7]),特别是在第一轮筛查中(DBT + SM:每1000名女性中有94.0名;DM:每1000名接受筛查的女性中有109.6名;差异:每1000名接受筛查的女性中有15.6名[CI: -31.0, -0.2])。DBT + SM的回忆阳性预测值(17.2%,2416名女性中有416名被召回)高于DM(12.3%, 2483名女性中有306名被召回,差异为4.9% [CI: 1.5, 8.3])。DBT + SM的假阳性活检率(每1000名筛查女性中有7.8例,49715例中有388例)更高(每1000名筛查女性中有1.8例;CI: 0.0, 3.6),活检阳性预测值为51.7%(804名活检女性中有416例;差异为1.1%;CI: -7.9, 10.2)。假阳性回忆后的间隔期癌症很少见(5例DBT + SM, 2例DM)。结论对大型随机TOSYMA试验的探索性分析表明,DBT + SM比DM具有更低的假阳性回忆率,特别是在第一轮筛选参与者中。轻度升高的DBT + SM假阳性活检被更多的乳腺癌检测所补偿。ClinicalTrial.gov标识码:NCT03377036©RSNA, 2025本文提供补充材料。参见Mesurolle在本期的社论。
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
Radiology
Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
35.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
596
审稿时长
3.6 months
期刊介绍: Published regularly since 1923 by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Radiology has long been recognized as the authoritative reference for the most current, clinically relevant and highest quality research in the field of radiology. Each month the journal publishes approximately 240 pages of peer-reviewed original research, authoritative reviews, well-balanced commentary on significant articles, and expert opinion on new techniques and technologies. Radiology publishes cutting edge and impactful imaging research articles in radiology and medical imaging in order to help improve human health.
×
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