Literature DB >> 23422255

Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection.

Nehmat Houssami1, Per Skaane2.   

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT, or 3D-mammography), a three-dimensional derivative of digital mammography (DM), reduces the effect of tissue superimposition and may improve mammographic interpretation. In this review, we examined the evidence on the accuracy of DBT in clinical studies. Published studies of DBT were relatively small studies, mostly test-set observer (reader) studies or clinical series that included symptomatic and screen-recalled cases, and were generally enriched with cancers. With these limitations in mind, the evidence showed some consistent findings, summarized as follows: two-view DBT has at least equal or better accuracy than standard two-view DM, whereas one-view DBT does not have better accuracy than standard DM; the addition of DBT to standard mammography (for mammographic interpretation or for assessment or triage of screen-recalled abnormalities) increases accuracy; improved accuracy from using DBT (relative to, or added to, DM) may be due to increased cancer detection or due to reduced false positive recalls, or both; and subjective interpretation of cancer conspicuity consistently found that cancers were equally or more conspicuous on DBT relative to DM. Preliminary data from population screening trials suggest that the integration of DBT with conventional DM (screen-reading using combined 2D + 3D mammography) may substantially improve breast cancer detection, although final results are not yet available, and many logistical issues need further evaluation to determine the potential implications and cost of combined 2D + 3D mammographic screening. At present, there is insufficient evidence to justify a change from standard DM to DBT however the available data strongly support investment in new large-scale population screening trials. These trials need to avoid the 'double' acquisitions required for 2D + 3D mammograms, and should therefore focus on evaluating integrated 2Dsynthetic + 3D mammography (where 2D-images are reconstructed from the DBT acquisition), and should consider using a randomized design.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23422255     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  42 in total

1.  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

2.  Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Joann G Elmore; Sofie Sebuødegård; Solveig Roth Hoff; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Ga Ram Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Ko Woon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Characterize MRI-Detected Additional Lesions Unidentified at Targeted Ultrasound in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Giovanna Mariscotti; Nehmat Houssami; Manuela Durando; Pier Paolo Campanino; Elisa Regini; Alberto Fornari; Riccardo Bussone; Isabella Castellano; Anna Sapino; Paolo Fonio; Giovanni Gandini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Improved digital breast tomosynthesis images using automated ultrasound.

Authors:  Xing Zhang; Jie Yuan; Sidan Du; Oliver D Kripfgans; Xueding Wang; Paul L Carson; Xiaojun Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Comparison of Sonography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Locate Intramammary Marker Clips.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; P Dankerl; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; D L Wachter; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger; B Brehm
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.915

9.  Rapid perceptual processing in two- and three-dimensional prostate images.

Authors:  Melissa Treviño; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Marcin Czarniecki; Peter L Choyke; Todd S Horowitz
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-01-03

Review 10.  An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques.

Authors:  Wayne Brisbane; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.