Changes in Use, Cost, and Value of Breast Cancer Screening Among Older Women in the US.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to estimate the total national direct cost of breast cancer screening from 2019 to 2022 and project the total national cost and average lifetime...

Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs. We used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation. Of the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually. The mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.

e18917 Background: Several clinical trials are comparing the safety and efficacy of risk-based and age-based breast cancer screening. This study aimed to estimate the aggregate yearly cost of screening in the USA for 2019 to 2021 and to project cost of four strategies: annual, biennial, hybrid, and the WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) clinical trial’s risk-based strategy. An assessment of screening costs under different strategies can inform policy decisions. Methods: Total cost was estimated for each strategy by summing screening and recall cost for eligible women from a national payer perspective. Data from the FDA Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program was used to estimate the number of screening mammograms in 2019 to 2021. Data from the Optum Labs Data Warehouse (OLDW) was used to estimate utilization of 2D and 3D mammograms, MRI and mammogram costs, recall costs and rates. OLDW contains longitudinal de-identified administrative, medical, and pharmacy claims for over 200 million commercial and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees and patients. Study subjects were continuously enrolled for approximately three years to capture all encounters. Medicare Advantage claims were used to approximate public payer costs and rates. We assumed 100% adherence to all strategies. The risk-based strategy used a cost of $270 for genetic testing and risk assessment. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate uncertainty in the estimated aggregate cost. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was used to determine the impact of each input on the aggregate cost. Results: Median mammogram costs ranged from $139-$360, MRI costs ranged from $545-$2,439, while recall rates ranged from 9.2%-20.9%. The annual cost of screening 50% of eligible women in 2019 was $11.5B ($10.37-13.94B) and cost $77,824 per breast cancer detected. The estimated yearly aggregate cost of screening 100% of eligible women was: $26.71B ($24.61-32.82B) for annual; $18.09B ($16.03-21.16B) for hybrid; $7.57B ($6.97-9.29B) for biennial; and $9.60B ($8.88-11.70B) for risk-based strategies. The estimated average cost per woman screened until 74 years was: $22,315 for annual; $16,552 for hybrid; $4,133 for biennial; and $6,878 for risk-based. The yearly aggregate cost of screening was most sensitive to variations in commercial 3D mammography cost. Conclusions: Biennial and risk-based screening can reduce cost substantially. Risk-based screening reduced cost even with the cost of population genetic testing included while maintaining intensive screening for the highest-risk women. The resources saved can be used to improve screening for women at high-risk of fast-growing disease who are often identified between screens and for improving overall adherence.

Background: In recent years, most insurance plans eliminated cost-sharing for breast cancer screening and recommended screening intervals changed, and newer modalities-digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis-became more widely available. The objectives of this study are to examine how these changes affected utilization, frequency, and costs of breast cancer screening among commercially insured women, and to understand factors associated with utilization and frequency of screening. Materials and Methods: This study used commercial insurance claims data for women 50 to 64 years of age, continuously enrolled in commercial insurance plans during 2012-2016. Results: Of the 685,737 eligible women, 20% were not screened, 40% received annual screening, 24% received biennial screening, and 16% were screened less frequently than recommended during the time period examined. Sociodemographic factors such as age <60 years, rurality, and fee-for-service insurance were associated with low screening utilization. Patients who received annual screening incurred ∼1.78 times higher costs compared to those who received biennial screening during the study period. Digital mammography was the most costly and commonly used modality along with computer-aided detection. Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions to promote screening among women who are screened less frequently are needed along with interventions to move toward biennial screening rather than annual screening. Increasing provider awareness regarding breast cancer screening rates and frequency among various sociodemographic groups is essential to guide provider recommendations and shared decision making. The results of this study can guide targeted public health interventions to reduce barriers to screening, and can also serve as inputs for economic analyses of screening interventions and programs.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is being rapidly implemented in breast cancer screening and demonstrates improved specificity and sensitivity compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. Prior work based on payer perspectives has demonstrated that DBT can be cost-effective. However, DBT is costlier than DM, and there are little data from a health system perspective about the comparative test performance and costs of DBT versus DM. Methods We evaluated breast cancer screening episodes in a single health system between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. A screening episode was defined as a single screening mammogram and all downstream breast diagnosis related costs for the following 1 year. Episodes were excluded if the patient had a prior diagnosis of breast cancer or reached 90 years of age before the end of the follow-up period. Test performance with respect to four outcomes – true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP), and false negative (FN) rates – was determined by comparing the BI-RADS score assigned at screening with data about subsequent cancer diagnosis from institutional and state cancer registries. Cost data were developed using CPT codes collected from organizational billing systems and converted to the Medicare Physician Fee Payment Schedule for our region with an imputed additional charge of $60.16 for DBT. Based on this approach, a DM screening exam cost $155.66 and a DBT screening exam cost $215.82. We evaluated overall costs across a screening episode, as well as by four windows: screening, follow-up, diagnosis, and cancer treatment. Data were described using percentages, and Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate differences in test performance outcomes and costs based on screening technology. Results There were a total of 46,483 cost episodes during the study period, of which 24,502 (52.7%) were screened by DM and 21,981 (47.3%) were screened by DBT. Overall, there were 224 TP (0.5%), 29 FN (0.1%), 4,530 FP (9.8%), and 41,700 TN (89.7%) episodes. Compared to DM episodes, DBT episodes had lower FP (8.6% vs. 10.8%, p&amp;lt;0.001) and higher TN (90.9% vs. 88.7%, p&amp;lt;0.001) rates. There were no statistically significant differences between DBT and DM episodes with respect to TP and FN rates. Overall, average episode costs were higher for DBT compared to DM ($378.02 vs. $286.62, p&amp;lt;0.001). This $91.40 difference was driven by higher average screening costs ($215.94 vs. $155.76, p&amp;lt;0.001), which approximated the additional charge for DBT, as well as follow-up costs ($23.67 vs. $12.11, p&amp;lt;0.001). There was no significant difference in costs between DBT and DM episodes within the diagnosis or cancer treatment windows. Compared to DM episodes, DBT episodes had equivalent average episode costs per woman screened for FP ($67.75 vs. $65.71, p=0.49), FN ($4.63 vs. $5.60, p=0.69) and TP ($85.80 vs. $65.15, p=0.07) outcomes, but higher costs for TN ($219.84 vs. $150.16, p&amp;lt;0.001) outcomes. Conclusion At a single health system, screening with DBT decreased FP rates and increased TN rates compared to screening with DM. DBT costs more overall, but not on a per-woman-screened basis for FP, FN, and TP outcomes. Citation Format: Liao GJ, Glick HA, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall MD, Conant EF. Comparative costs of breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: A health system perspective [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-05.

BACKGROUND. Postoperative mammograms present interpretive challenges due to postoperative distortion and hematomas. The application of digital breast tomosyn-thesis (DBT) and artificial intelligence-based computer-aided detection (AI-CAD) after breast-conserving therapy (BCT) has not been widely investigated. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the impact of additional DBT or AI-CAD on recall rate and diagnostic performance in women undergoing mammographic surveillance after BCT. METHODS. This retrospective study included 314 women (mean age, 53.3 ± 10.6 [SD] years; four with bilateral breast cancer) who underwent BCT followed by DBT (mean interval from surgery to DBT, 15.2 ± 15.4 months). Three breast radiologists independently reviewed images in three sessions: digital mammography (DM), DM with DBT (DM plus DBT), and DM with AI-CAD (DM plus AI-CAD). Recall rates and diagnostic performance were compared between DM, DM plus DBT, and DM plus AI-CAD using the readers' mean results. RESULTS. Of the 314 women, six breast recurrences (three ipsilateral and three contralateral) had developed at the time of surveillance mammography. The ipsilateral breast recall rate was lower for DM plus AI-CAD (1.9%) than for DM (11.2%) or DM plus DBT (4.1%) (p < .001). The contralateral breast recall rate was significantly lower for DM plus AI-CAD (1.5%, p < .001) than for DM (6.6%) but for not DM plus DBT (2.7%, p = .08). In the ipsilateral breast, accuracy was higher for DM plus AI-CAD (97.0%) than for DM (88.5%) or DM plus DBT (94.8%) (p < .05); specificity was higher for DM plus AI-CAD (98.3%) than for DM (89.3%) or DM plus DBT (96.1%) (p < .05); sensitivity was significantly lower for DM plus AI-CAD (22.2%) than for DM (66.7%, p = .03) but not DM plus DBT (22.2%, p > .99). In the contralateral breast, accuracy was significantly higher for DM plus AI-CAD (97.1%) than for DM (92.5%, p < .001) but not DM plus DBT (96.1%, p = .25); specificity was significantly higher for DM plus AI-CAD (98.6%) than for DM (93.7%, p < .001) but not DM plus DBT (97.5%) (p = .09); sensitivity was not different between DM (33.3%), DM plus DBT (22.2%), and DM plus AI-CAD (11.1%) (p > .05). CONCLUSION. After BCT, adjunct DBT or AI-CAD reduced recall rates and improved accuracy in the ipsilateral and contralateral breasts compared with DM. In the ipsilateral breast, the addition of AI-CAD resulted in a lower recall rate and higher accuracy than the addition of DBT. CLINICAL IMPACT. AI-CAD may help address the challenges of interpreting post-BCT surveillance mammograms.

Introduction: Patients in the United States (US) often lack information about the price of breast cancer screening services across hospitals and payers. Recent legislation in the US, including the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule, requires hospitals to publish standard chargemaster rates, payer-specific negotiated prices, and discounted cash prices for all services, creating a unique opportunity to understand variation in hospital pricing. While uninsured or underinsured patients may be exposed to high chargemaster rates for screening services, those who are able to pay upfront in cash or have negotiated rates through insurance face significantly discounted prices. More research is needed to better understand the relationship between the distinct screening prices facing patients in the United States. Methods: We extracted standard chargemaster prices, payer-specific negotiated prices, and self-pay cash prices for screening mammography (CPT code 77067) from machine-readable files published by ten top US hospitals. For each hospital, we compared the standard chargemaster rate for screening mammography with the average payer negotiated price and determined the chargemaster-payer price ratio. Additionally, we compared the standard chargemaster rates and discounted cash prices for screening mammography, and determined the chargemaster-cash price ratio for each hospital. Results: Across ten top US hospitals, the average chargemaster rate for screening mammography was $855. The average cash price for the same service was $305, with an average chargemaster-cash price ratio of 3.7. The average payer-negotiated price for screening mammography was $411, and chargemaster rates were greater than payer-negotiated prices by an average factor of 2.2. The average cash price for breast cancer screening was 74.2% of the average payer negotiated rate for the same service. We observed wide variation across institutions for chargemaster rates, payer-negotiated rates, and discounted cash prices for screening mammography, with interquartile ranges of $198, $292, and $203, respectively. Conclusion: Across ten top US hospitals, the chargemaster price for screening mammography was greater than the average payer negotiated rates and discounted cash price for the same service by a factor of 2.2 and 3.7, respectively. This price discrepancy has important consequences for individuals seeking essential breast cancer screening services, with uninsured patients facing prohibitive costs. As curable breast cancers go undetected, the burden on the healthcare system escalates. Policies should aim to improve price transparency, equity, and access to lifesaving breast cancer screening for the most vulnerable populations in the United States. Citation Format: Mason Alford-Holloway, Austin Triana, Katherine Baker, Samyukta Mullangi. Assessing the True Cost of Breast Cancer Screening: Chargemaster, Payer, and Cash Price Discrepancies for Mammography [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-02-06.

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis may decrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography. To estimate the probability of receiving at least 1 false-positive result after 10 years of screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography in the US. An observational comparative effectiveness study with data collected prospectively for screening examinations was performed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Analysis included 903 495 individuals aged 40 to 79 years. Data analysis was conducted from February 9 to September 7, 2021. Screening modality, screening interval, age, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density. Cumulative risk of at least 1 false-positive recall for further imaging, short-interval follow-up recommendation, and biopsy recommendation after 10 years of annual or biennial screening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of breast cancer diagnosis and death. In this study of 903 495 women, 2 969 055 nonbaseline screening examinations were performed with interpretation by 699 radiologists. Mean (SD) age of the women at the time of the screening examinations was 57.6 (9.9) years, and 58% of the examinations were in individuals younger than 60 years and 46% were performed in women with dense breasts. A total of 15% of examinations used tomosynthesis. For annual screening, the 10-year cumulative probability of at least 1 false-positive result was significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -7.4 to -6.1) for recall, 16.6% vs 17.8% (difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.6) for short-interval follow-up recommendation, and 11.2% vs 11.7% (difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1) for biopsy recommendation. For biennial screening, the cumulative probability of a false-positive recall was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.5), but cumulative probabilities did not differ significantly by modality for short-interval follow-up recommendation (10.3% vs 10.5%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.5) or biopsy recommendation (6.6% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4). Decreases in cumulative probabilities of false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in women with nondense breasts (differences for recall, -6.5 to -12.8; short-interval follow-up, 0.1 to -5.2; and biopsy recommendation, -0.5 to -3.1). Regardless of modality, cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial vs annual screening (overall recall, 35.7 to 38.1 vs 49.6 to 56.3; short-interval follow-up, 10.3 to 10.5 vs 16.6 to 17.8; and biopsy recommendation, 6.6 to 6.7 vs 11.2 to 11.7); older vs younger age groups (eg, among annual screening in women ages 70-79 vs 40-49, recall, 39.8 to 47.0 vs 60.8 to 68.0; short-interval follow-up, 13.3 to 14.2 vs 20.7 to 20.9; and biopsy recommendation, 9.1 to 9.3 vs 13.2 to 13.4); and women with entirely fatty vs extremely dense breasts (eg, among annual screening in women aged 50-59 years, recall, 29.1 to 36.3 vs 58.8 to 60.4; short-interval follow-up, 8.9 to 11.6 vs 19.5 to 19.8; and biopsy recommendation, 4.9 to 8.0 vs 15.1 to 15.3). In this comparative effectiveness study, 10-year cumulative probabilities of false-positive results were lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. Biennial screening interval, older age, and nondense breasts were associated with larger reductions in false-positive probabilities than screening modality.

BackgroundBreast cancer is considered the most serious lesion among different breast lesions. Mammography is the corner stone for screening for detection of breast cancer. It has been modified to digital mammography (DM) and then to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Tomosynthesis is an emerging technique for diagnosis and screening of breast lesions.The aim of this study is to interrogate whether the addition of DBT to DM helps in better detection and characterization of different breast lesions.MethodsThis is a prospective study carried on 38 female patients according to our inclusion criteria. All patients were evaluated by using DM alone and thereafter with the addition of DBT to DM. Recall rate was calculated, and the imaging findings of each case were correlated with the final diagnosis and follow-up.ResultsDM identified 32 lesions while DBT with DM identified 37 lesions. On DM alone, 17 lesions were characterized as masses, 5 as focal asymmetry, 2 as architectural distortion, 7 as microcalcification and 1 as macrocalcification. With the addition of DBT, 27 lesions were characterized as masses, 1 as focal asymmetry, 1 as architectural distortion, 7 as microcalcification and 1 as macrocalcification. So, there were better detection and characterization of lesions with the addition of DBT than DM alone. The sensitivity, specificity, AUC, positive and negative predictive values were significantly higher with the addition of DBT to DM (100%, 90.5%, 0.952, 90% and 100%, respectively) than with DM (77.8%, 80.9%, 0.794, 77.8% and 80.9%, respectively) for all breast lesions.ConclusionsThe addition of DBT to DM helps in better detection and characterization of different breast lesions. This leads to early detection of breast cancer, improvement of the performance of radiologists and saving time by reduction of recall rate.

The objectives are To to compare the diagnostic performance of combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) with that of DM alone, as a function of radiologists' experience with DBT. Ethical committee approval was obtained. Fifty cases (27 cancer, 23 normal), each containing both digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images, were reviewed by 26 radiologists, divided into three groups according to level of experience with DBT (none, workshop experience, and clinical experience). The radiologists' diagnostic performance using DM was compared with that using DM + DBT, and evaluated by area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), jackknife free-response receiver-operator characteristics figure of metric (JAFROC FOM), sensitivity, location sensitivity, and specificity. For all readers combined, performance using DM + DBT was significantly higher than for DM alone by both AUC (0.788 vs 0.681, p < 0.001) and JAFROC FOM (0.745 vs 0.621, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for readers with no DBT experience (AUC 0.775 vs 0.682, p = 0.004; JAFROC FOM 0.695 vs 0.603, p = 0.016) and with clinical DBT experience (AUC 0.789 vs 0.681, p = 0.042; and JAFROC FOM 0.764 vs 0.632, p = 0.031). Addition of DBT to DM significantly improves radiologists' diagnostic performance whether or not they have prior DBT experience. • Adding DBT to DM increased the number of detected cancers • DBT + DM led to more accurate localization of breast cancers than DM • Addition of DBT improved radiologists' performance regardless of prior DBT experience • High-volume radiologists with different DBT experience levels performed similarly on DM + DBT.

This study uses Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis data to examine the total annual cost of breast cancer screening for women aged 40 through 49 years in the United States.

This cross-sectional study was conducted to compare the average costs of breast cancer screening and treatment among women with the age of 25 and over in Shiraz-Iran. Three majors hospitals affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) were selected for data collection. Financial documents and interviews with the hospitals' financial officers were used for data collection. Finding shows that the total cost of screening would be 5,847,544.96 US dollars for age groups of 25-34 and 35 and above, demonstrating the huge expense of screening programs. On the other hand, the average cost of breast cancer treatment for each patient would be 3608.47, 996.89, and 311.47 US dollars for mastectomy, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, respectively. In addition, the total average cost for treatment of 2217 patients would be 1,466,988.9 US dollars, which is much less than screening programs expenses. It is concluded that although screening can be effective for improving quality of life and treatment effectiveness, considering the high costs of screening, it is not economical in Iran. Screening methods within suitable intervals, and also considering patients' medical history have been recommended by the present study.

Breast cancer screening is predominantly performed using digital mammography (DM), but higher sensitivity has been demonstrated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). A partial DBT screening in selected groups with a clear benefit from DBT might be more feasible than a full implementation, and using artificial intelligence (AI) to select women for DBT might be a possibility. This study used data from Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, where all women prospectively were examined with separately read DM and DBT. We retrospectively analysed DM examinations (n=14768) with a breast cancer detection software and used the provided risk score (1-10) for risk stratification. We tested how different score thresholds for adding DBT to an initial DM affects the number of detected cancers, additional DBT examinations needed, detection rate, and false positives. If using a threshold of 9.0, 25 (26 %) more cancers would be detected compared to using DM alone. Of the 41 cancers only detected on DBT, 61 % would be detected, with only 1797 (12 %) of the women examined with both DM and DBT. The detection rate for the added DBT would be 14/1000 women, while the false positive recalls would be increased with 58 (21 %). Using DBT only for selected high gain cases could be an alternative to a complete DBT screening. AI could be used for analysing DM to identify high gain cases, where DBT can be added during the same visit. There might be logistical challenges and further studies in a prospective setting are necessary.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

To determine the added value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the assessment of lesions detected by contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary university medical center. All CEM studies including DBT performed between January 2016 and December 2020 were included. Lesions were categorized and scored by four dedicated breast radiologists according to the recent CEM and DBT supplements to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) lexicon. Changes in the BIRADS score of CEM-detected lesions with the addition of DBT were evaluated according to the pathology results and 1-year follow-up imaging study. BIRADS scores of CEM-detected lesions were upgraded toward the lesion's pathology with the addition of DBT (p > 0.0001), overall and for each reader. The difference in BIRADS scores before and after the addition of DBT was more significant for readers who were less experienced. The reason for changes in the BIRADS score was better lesion margin visibility. The main BIRADS descriptors applied in the malignant lesions were spiculations, calcifications, architectural distortion, and sharp or obscured margins. The addition of DBT to CEM provides valuable information on the enhancing lesion, leading to a more accurate BIRADS score.