PURPOSE: To compare stereoscopic digital mammography (DM) with standard DM for the rate of patient recall and the detection of cancer in a screening population at elevated risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting in September 2004 and ending in December 2007, this prospective HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved screening trial, with written informed consent, recruited female patients at elevated risk for breast cancer (eg, personal history of breast cancer or breast cancer in a close relative). A total of 1298 examinations from 779 patients (mean age, 58.6 years; range, 32-91 years) comprised the analyzable data set. A paired study design was used, with each enrolled patient serving as her own control. Patients underwent both DM and stereoscopic DM examinations in a single visit, findings of which were interpreted independently by two experienced radiologists, each using a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment (BI-RADS category 0, 1, or 2). All patients determined to have one or more findings with either or both modalities were recalled for standard diagnostic evaluation. The results of 1-year follow-up or biopsy were used to determine case truth. RESULTS: Compared with DM, stereoscopic DM showed significantly higher specificity (91.2% [1167 of 1279] vs 87.8% [1123 of 1279]; P = .0024) and accuracy (90.9% [1180 of 1298] vs 87.4% [1135 of 1298]; P = .0023) for detection of cancer. Sensitivity for detection of cancer was not significantly different for stereoscopic DM (68.4% [13 of 19]) compared with DM (63.2% [12 of 19], P .99). The recall rate for stereoscopic DM was 9.6% (125 of 1298) and that for DM was 12.9% (168 of 1298) (P = .0018). CONCLUSION: Compared with DM, stereoscopic DM significantly improved specificity for detection of cancer, while maintaining comparable sensitivity. The recall rate was significantly reduced with stereoscopic DM compared with DM. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120382/-/DC1. RSNA, 2012
PURPOSE: To compare stereoscopic digital mammography (DM) with standard DM for the rate of patient recall and the detection of cancer in a screening population at elevated risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting in September 2004 and ending in December 2007, this prospective HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved screening trial, with written informed consent, recruited female patients at elevated risk for breast cancer (eg, personal history of breast cancer or breast cancer in a close relative). A total of 1298 examinations from 779 patients (mean age, 58.6 years; range, 32-91 years) comprised the analyzable data set. A paired study design was used, with each enrolled patient serving as her own control. Patients underwent both DM and stereoscopic DM examinations in a single visit, findings of which were interpreted independently by two experienced radiologists, each using a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment (BI-RADS category 0, 1, or 2). All patients determined to have one or more findings with either or both modalities were recalled for standard diagnostic evaluation. The results of 1-year follow-up or biopsy were used to determine case truth. RESULTS: Compared with DM, stereoscopic DM showed significantly higher specificity (91.2% [1167 of 1279] vs 87.8% [1123 of 1279]; P = .0024) and accuracy (90.9% [1180 of 1298] vs 87.4% [1135 of 1298]; P = .0023) for detection of cancer. Sensitivity for detection of cancer was not significantly different for stereoscopic DM (68.4% [13 of 19]) compared with DM (63.2% [12 of 19], P .99). The recall rate for stereoscopic DM was 9.6% (125 of 1298) and that for DM was 12.9% (168 of 1298) (P = .0018). CONCLUSION: Compared with DM, stereoscopic DM significantly improved specificity for detection of cancer, while maintaining comparable sensitivity. The recall rate was significantly reduced with stereoscopic DM compared with DM. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120382/-/DC1. RSNA, 2012
Authors: Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 2.692