Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Jul 31.
Published in final edited form as: Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Mar 1;156(1):109–116. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1

Table 3.

Cancer outcomes for digital breast tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography (DBT) compared to digital mammography (DM) alone

Cancer outcomes DM*
n=113,061
DBT*
n=25,268
p-value Unadjusted Adjusted
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Cancer rate per 1,000 4.9 6.5 0.0016 1.33 (1.12–1.59) 1.49 (1.17–1.89)
Invasive cancer rate per 1,000 3.7 4.7 0.0252 1.27 (1.04–1.56) 1.45 (1.09–1.92)
 Total cancers (n) 551 164
  Invasive cancers (n) 419 119
  Ductal carcinoma in situ (n) 132 45
Cancer detection rate per 1,000 4.4 5.9 0.0026 1.34 (1.11–1.61) 1.45 (1.12–1.88)
Invasive cancer detection rate per 1,000 3.3 4.2 0.0449 1.26 (1.01–1.56) 1.38 (1.02–1.87)
 Total cancers (n) 499 149
  Invasive cancers (n) 378 106
  Ductal carcinoma in situ (n) 121 43
False negative rate per 1,000 0.46 0.60 0.347 0.94 (0.28–3.14) 0.55 (0.13–2.26)
PPV1 (cancers/recall), % 4.1 6.4 <0.0001 1.60 (1.32–1.93) 2.02 (1.54–2.65)
Sensitivity % 90.6 90.9 1.00 1.03 (0.57–1.89) 0.79 (0.38–1.64)
Specificity % 89.7 91.3 <0.0001 1.22 (1.16–1.28) 1.39 (1.30–1.48)
*

Exams were restricted to women under observation for at least 1 year.

Adjusted for center, age (age 40–49, 50–59, 60–74), breast density (categories 1, 2, 3, 4), and first exam.

Lobular cancer in situ is not included. Invasive or in situ behavior was unknown for one cancer diagnosis.