Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 11/2023

Open Access 05-05-2023 | Mammography | Breast

False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial

Authors: Kristin Johnson, Jakob Olinder, Aldana Rosso, Ingvar Andersson, Kristina Lång, Sophia Zackrisson

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the total number of false-positive recalls, including radiographic appearances and false-positive biopsies, in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST).

Methods

The prospective, population-based MBTST, with 14,848 participating women, was designed to compare one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to two-view digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening. False-positive recall rates, radiographic appearances, and biopsy rates were analyzed. Comparisons were made between DBT, DM, and DBT + DM, both in total and in trial year 1 compared to trial years 2 to 5, with numbers, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

The false-positive recall rate was higher with DBT, 1.6% (95% CI 1.4; 1.8), compared to screening with DM, 0.8% (95% CI 0.7; 1.0). The proportion of the radiographic appearance of stellate distortion was 37.3% (91/244) with DBT, compared to 24.0% (29/121) with DM. The false-positive recall rate with DBT during trial year 1 was 2.6% (95% CI 1.8; 3.5), then stabilized at 1.5% (95% CI 1.3; 1.8) during trial years 2 to 5. The percentage of stellate distortion with DBT was 50% (19/38) trial year 1 compared to 35.0% (72/206) trial years 2 to 5.

Conclusions

The higher false-positive recall rate with DBT compared to DM was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings. The proportion of these findings, as well as the DBT false-positive recall rate, was reduced after the first trial year.

Clinical relevance statement

Assessment of false-positive recalls gives information on potential benefits and side effects in DBT screening.

Key Points

The false-positive recall rate in a prospective digital breast tomosynthesis screening trial was higher compared to digital mammography, but still low compared to other trials.
The higher false-positive recall rate with digital breast tomosynthesis was mainly due to an increased detection of stellate findings; the proportion of these findings was reduced after the first trial year.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bolejko A, Hagell P, Wann-Hansson C, Zackrisson S (2015) Prevalence, long-term development, and predictors of psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography among women attending population-based screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24:1388–1397 Bolejko A, Hagell P, Wann-Hansson C, Zackrisson S (2015) Prevalence, long-term development, and predictors of psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography among women attending population-based screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24:1388–1397
2.
go back to reference Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K et al Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK (2013) Evid Based Med 18:54–61 Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K et al Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK (2013) Evid Based Med 18:54–61
3.
go back to reference Maxwell AJ, Beattie C, Lavelle J et al (2013) The effect of false positive breast screening examinations on subsequent attendance: retrospective cohort study. J Med Screen 20:91–98CrossRefPubMed Maxwell AJ, Beattie C, Lavelle J et al (2013) The effect of false positive breast screening examinations on subsequent attendance: retrospective cohort study. J Med Screen 20:91–98CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Shen Y, Winget M, Yuan Y (2018) The impact of false positive breast cancer screening mammograms on screening retention: a retrospective population cohort study in Alberta, Canada. Can J Public Health 108:e539-e545 Shen Y, Winget M, Yuan Y (2018) The impact of false positive breast cancer screening mammograms on screening retention: a retrospective population cohort study in Alberta, Canada. Can J Public Health 108:e539-e545
5.
go back to reference Roman M, Hofvind S, von Euler-Chelpin M, Castells X (2019) Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts. Br J Cancer 120:269–275CrossRefPubMed Roman M, Hofvind S, von Euler-Chelpin M, Castells X (2019) Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts. Br J Cancer 120:269–275CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Castells X, Tora-Rocamora I, Posso M et al (2016) Risk of breast cancer in women with false-positive results according to mammographic features. Radiology 280:379–386CrossRefPubMed Castells X, Tora-Rocamora I, Posso M et al (2016) Risk of breast cancer in women with false-positive results according to mammographic features. Radiology 280:379–386CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17:1105–1113 Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17:1105–1113
8.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 291:23–30CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 291:23–30CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Zackrisson S, Lang K, Rosso A et al (2018) One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 19:1493–1503 Zackrisson S, Lang K, Rosso A et al (2018) One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol 19:1493–1503
10.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Holen AS, Aase HS et al (2019) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 20:795–805 Hofvind S, Holen AS, Aase HS et al (2019) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 20:795–805
11.
go back to reference Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2018) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:942–949CrossRefPubMed Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2018) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst 110:942–949CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Kim G, Mercaldo S, Bahl M (2021) Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on finding types leading to true-positive and false-positive examinations. Clin Imaging 71:155–159 Kim G, Mercaldo S, Bahl M (2021) Impact of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on finding types leading to true-positive and false-positive examinations. Clin Imaging 71:155–159
13.
go back to reference Osteras BH, Martinsen ACT, Gullien R, Skaane P (2019) Digital mammography versus breast tomosynthesis: impact of breast density on diagnostic performance in population-based screening. Radiology 293:60–68CrossRefPubMed Osteras BH, Martinsen ACT, Gullien R, Skaane P (2019) Digital mammography versus breast tomosynthesis: impact of breast density on diagnostic performance in population-based screening. Radiology 293:60–68CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Aase HS, Danielsen AS, Hoff SR et al (2021) Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 141:109753CrossRefPubMed Aase HS, Danielsen AS, Hoff SR et al (2021) Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 141:109753CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Lang K, Nergarden M, Andersson I, Rosso A, Zackrisson S (2016) False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: an analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Eur Radiol 26:3899–3907 Lang K, Nergarden M, Andersson I, Rosso A, Zackrisson S (2016) False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: an analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Eur Radiol 26:3899–3907
16.
go back to reference Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14(7):583–589 Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14(7):583–589
17.
go back to reference Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Dang PA, Mccarthy AM, Lowry KP, Lehman CD (2020) Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: are initial benefits sustained? Radiology 295:529–539CrossRefPubMed Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Dang PA, Mccarthy AM, Lowry KP, Lehman CD (2020) Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: are initial benefits sustained? Radiology 295:529–539CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM et al (2021) Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 18:1280–1288CrossRefPubMed Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM et al (2021) Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 18:1280–1288CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
Authors
Kristin Johnson
Jakob Olinder
Aldana Rosso
Ingvar Andersson
Kristina Lång
Sophia Zackrisson
Publication date
05-05-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2023
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09705-x

Other articles of this Issue 11/2023

European Radiology 11/2023 Go to the issue