title: Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Initial review of patients undergoing screening mammography imaged with a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus full field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM alone.
  
  
  METHODS
  From June 2011 to December 2011, all patients presenting for routine screening mammography were offered a combination DBT plus FFDM exam. Under institutional review board approval, we reviewed 524 patients who opted for combination DBT plus FFDM and selected a sample group of 524 FFDM screening exams from the same time period for a comparative analysis. The χ(2) (Chi-square) test was used to compare recall rates, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer between the two groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Recall rate for FFDM, 11.45%, was significantly higher (P < 0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (4.20%). The biopsy rate in the FFDM group was 2.29% (12/524), with a cancer detection rate of 0.38% (2/524, or 3.8 per 1000) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 16.7% (2/12). The biopsy rate for the DBT plus FFDM group was 1.14% (n = 6/524), with a cancer detection rate 0.57% (n = 3/524, or 5.7 per 1000) and PPV of 50.0% (n = 3/6). Personal history of breast cancer in the FFDM group was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group; 2.5% and 5.7%, respectively. A significant difference in family history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001) was found, with a higher rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (36.0% vs. 53.8%). There was a significant difference between the combination DBT plus FFDM group and FFDM alone group, when comparing breast density (P < 0.0147, 61.64% vs. 54.20% dense breasts, respectively) with a higher rate of dense breasts in the DBT plus FFDM group. In follow-up, one cancer was detected within one year of normal screening mammogram in the combination DBT plus FFDM group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our initial experience found the recall rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group was significantly lower than in the FFDM alone group, despite the fact that the combination DBT plus FFDM group had additional risk factors.
authors.affiliation: Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, Rochester, New York.
authors.forename: Stamatia
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Destounis
authors.affiliation: Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, Rochester, New York.
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Arieno
authors.affiliation: Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, Rochester, New York.
authors.forename: Renee
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Morgan
keywords: Breast imaging; digital breast tomosynthesis; screening mammography
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Aug;195(2):W172-6
references.pmid: 20651178
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1773-83
references.pmid: 16169887
references.citation: Cancer. 1982 Jun 15;49(12):2527-33
references.pmid: 7074569
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Feb;200(2):291-8
references.pmid: 23345348
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Sep;179(3):671-7
references.pmid: 12185042
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2010 Jul;20(7):1545-53
references.pmid: 20033175
references.citation: Radiology. 1997 Nov;205(2):399-406
references.pmid: 9356620
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Sep;189(3):616-23
references.pmid: 17715109
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Feb 4;96(3):185-90
references.pmid: 14759985
references.citation: Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):104-13
references.pmid: 23169790
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Apr;190(4):865-9
references.pmid: 18356430
references.citation: Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):61-8
references.pmid: 21998048
references.citation: Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):47-56
references.pmid: 23297332
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2012 Dec;85(1020):e1174-8
references.pmid: 23175484
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2010 Jan;20(1):16-24
references.pmid: 19657655
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Aug;193(2):586-91
references.pmid: 19620460