We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparing the performance of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the post-treatment surveillance of patients with a history of breast cancer: A retrospective study.
Radiography 2023 August 11
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of 2D (FFDM) against 3D (FFDM plus DBT) examinations in the post-treatment surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer survivors.
METHODS: A list of women with a history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography (2D or 3D) from 5/2017 to 5/2020 was retrieved. A total of 20,210 examinations were identified and performance metrics were compared.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) (p = 0.38), recall rate (RR) (p = 0.087), or positive predictive value (PPV) (p = 0.74) between 2D vs. 3D examinations. Stratification by breast tissue identified no statistically significant difference in CDR (p = 0.581 and p = 0.428), RR (p = 0.230 and p = 0.205), or PPV (p = 0.908 and p = 0.721) between fatty/scattered and heterogeneous/extremely dense breast tissue when comparing 2D vs 3D examinations. Stratification by age did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 2D vs. 3D examinations in the 60-69 years group (p = 0.021). Stratification by race did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 3D vs. 2D examinations in white women (p = 0.036). Stratification by laterality (bilateral vs. unilateral post mastectomy) did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased in 2D vs. 3D examinations in unilateral studies (p = 0.009).
CONCLUSION: For asymptomatic women with a history of breast cancer, there is no evidence that the addition of DBT to FFDM improves CDR, RR, or PPV.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More studies are needed concerning screening methodologies supplementing FFDM in the screening regimens of breast cancer survivors.
METHODS: A list of women with a history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography (2D or 3D) from 5/2017 to 5/2020 was retrieved. A total of 20,210 examinations were identified and performance metrics were compared.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant difference in cancer detection rate (CDR) (p = 0.38), recall rate (RR) (p = 0.087), or positive predictive value (PPV) (p = 0.74) between 2D vs. 3D examinations. Stratification by breast tissue identified no statistically significant difference in CDR (p = 0.581 and p = 0.428), RR (p = 0.230 and p = 0.205), or PPV (p = 0.908 and p = 0.721) between fatty/scattered and heterogeneous/extremely dense breast tissue when comparing 2D vs 3D examinations. Stratification by age did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 2D vs. 3D examinations in the 60-69 years group (p = 0.021). Stratification by race did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased with 3D vs. 2D examinations in white women (p = 0.036). Stratification by laterality (bilateral vs. unilateral post mastectomy) did not identify a significant difference in RR or PPV between the two groups. CDR was statistically increased in 2D vs. 3D examinations in unilateral studies (p = 0.009).
CONCLUSION: For asymptomatic women with a history of breast cancer, there is no evidence that the addition of DBT to FFDM improves CDR, RR, or PPV.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More studies are needed concerning screening methodologies supplementing FFDM in the screening regimens of breast cancer survivors.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app