Literature DB >> 23901124

Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.

Brian M Haas1, Vivek Kalra, Jaime Geisel, Madhavi Raghu, Melissa Durand, Liane E Philpotts.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare screening recall rates and cancer detection rates of tomosynthesis plus conventional digital mammography to those of conventional digital mammography alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients presenting for screening mammography between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012, at four clinical sites were reviewed in this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, for which the institutional review board granted approval and waived the requirement for informed consent. Patients at sites with digital tomosynthesis were offered screening with digital mammography plus tomosynthesis. Patients at sites without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography. Recall rates were calculated and stratified according to breast density and patient age. Cancer detection rates were calculated and stratified according to the presence of a risk factor for breast cancer. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the effect of screening method, breast density, patient age, and cancer risk on the odds of recall from screening.
RESULTS: A total of 13 158 patients presented for screening mammography; 6100 received tomosynthesis. The overall recall rate was 8.4% for patients in the tomosynthesis group and 12.0% for those in the conventional mammography group (P < .01). The addition of tomosynthesis reduced recall rates for all breast density and patient age groups, with significant differences (P < .05) found for scattered fibroglandular, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense breasts and for patients younger than 40 years, those aged 40-49 years, those aged 50-59 years, and those aged 60-69 years. These findings persisted when multivariate logistic regression was used to control for differences in age, breast density, and elevated risk of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate was 5.7 per 1000 in patients receiving tomosynthesis versus 5.2 per 1000 in patients receiving conventional mammography alone (P = .70).
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening recall rates. The greatest reductions were for those younger than 50 years and those with dense breasts. A nonsignificant 9.5% increase in cancer detection was observed in the tomosynthesis group. © RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23901124     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130307

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


  88 in total

1.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications on planar projection images.

Authors:  Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging.

Authors:  Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 11.105

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.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Stationary intraoral digital tomosynthesis using a carbon nanotube X-ray source array.

Authors:  J Shan; A W Tucker; L R Gaalaas; G Wu; E Platin; A Mol; J Lu; O Zhou
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 2.419

8.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis].

Authors:  H Preibsch; K C Siegmann-Luz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 0.635

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

10.  Transfer Learning From Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Diagnosis: A Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Kayla Mendel; Hui Li; Deepa Sheth; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.