Literature DB >> 23297332

Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

Per Skaane1, Andriy I Bandos, Randi Gullien, Ellen B Eben, Ulrika Ekseth, Unni Haakenaasen, Mina Izadi, Ingvild N Jebsen, Gunnar Jahr, Mona Krager, Loren T Niklason, Solveig Hofvind, David Gur.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess cancer detection rates, false-positive rates before arbitration, positive predictive values for women recalled after arbitration, and the type of cancers detected with use of digital mammography alone and combined with tomosynthesis in a large prospective screening trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, reader- and modality-balanced screening study of participants undergoing combined mammography plus tomosynthesis, the results of which were read independently by four different radiologists, is under way. The study was approved by a regional ethics committee, and all participants provided written informed consent. The authors performed a preplanned interim analysis of results from 12,631 examinations interpreted by using mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis from November 22, 2010, to December 31, 2011. Analyses were based on marginal log-linear models for binary data, accounting for correlated interpretations and adjusting for reader-specific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294.
RESULTS: Detection rates, including those for invasive and in situ cancers, were 6.1 per 1000 examinations for mammography alone and 8.0 per 1000 examinations for mammography plus tomosynthesis (27% increase, adjusted for reader; P = .001). False-positive rates before arbitration were 61.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography alone and 53.1 per 1000 examinations with mammography plus tomosynthesis (15% decrease, adjusted for reader; P < .001). After arbitration, positive predictive values for recalled patients with cancers verified later were comparable (29.1% and 28.5%, respectively, with mammography alone and mammography plus tomosynthesis; P = .72). Twenty-five additional invasive cancers were detected with mammography plus tomosynthesis (40% increase, adjusted for reader; P < .001). The mean interpretation time was 45 seconds for mammography alone and 91 seconds for mammography plus tomosynthesis (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: The use of mammography plus tomosynthesis in a screening environment resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate and enabled the detection of more invasive cancers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT01248546. RSNA, 2013

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23297332     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  198 in total

1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade.

Authors:  Geunwon Kim; Peter G Mikhael; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Image toggling saves time in mammography.

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Avi M Aizenman; Matthew B Thompson; Mark D Kovacs; Michael Trambert; Murray A Reicher; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-10-12

5.  Assessment of MRI-detected lesions on screening tomosynthesis in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Sadia Choudhery; Eric Polley; Amy Lynn Conners
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 1.605

6.  Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.

Authors:  Akiko Daidoji; Takatoshi Aoki; Seiichi Murakami; Mari Miyata; Masami Fujii; Takefumi Katsuki; Yuzuru Inoue; Yuko Tashima; Yoshika Nagata; Keiji Hirata; Fumihiro Tanaka; Yukunori Korogi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana P Lourenco; Grayson L Baird; Robert C Ward; A Stanley Maynard; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Christian Waldherr; Gilles Berclaz; Hans Jörg Altermatt; Peter Cerny; Patrik Keller; Uwe Dietz; Katharina Buser; Michele Ciriolo; Martin Josef Sonnenschein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.