Literature DB >> 25768673

Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.

Christiane M Hakim1, Victor J Catullo1, Denise M Chough1, Marie A Ganott1, Amy E Kelly1, Dilip D Shinde1, Jules H Sumkin1, Luisa P Wallace1, Andriy I Bandos1, David Gur1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of and interaction between the availability of prior images and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images in decisions to recall women during mammogram interpretation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Verbal informed consent was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved protocol. Eight radiologists independently interpreted twice deidentified mammograms obtained in 153 women (age range, 37-83 years; mean age, 53.7 years ± 9.3 [standard deviation]) in a mode by reader by case-balanced fully crossed study. Each study consisted of current and prior full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images and DBT images that were acquired in our facility between June 2009 and January 2013. For one reading, sequential ratings were provided by using (a) current FFDM images only, (b) current FFDM and DBT images, and (c) current FFDM, DBT, and prior FFDM images. The other reading consisted of (a) current FFDM images only, (b) current and prior FFDM images, and (c) current FFDM, prior FFDM, and DBT images. Fifty verified cancer cases, 60 negative and benign cases (clinically not recalled), and 43 benign cases (clinically recalled) were included. Recall recommendations and interaction between the effect of prior FFDM and DBT images were assessed by using a generalized linear model accounting for case and reader variability.
RESULTS: Average recall rates in noncancer cases were significantly reduced with the addition of prior FFDM images by 34% (145 of 421) and 32% (106 of 333) without and with DBT images, respectively (P < .001). However, this recall reduction was achieved at the cost of a corresponding 7% (23 of 345) and 4% (14 of 353) reduction in sensitivity (P = .006). In contrast, availability of DBT images resulted in a smaller reduction in recall rates (false-positive interpretations) of 19% (76 of 409) and 26% (71 of 276) without and with prior FFDM images, respectively (P = .001). Availability of DBT images resulted in 4% (15 of 338) and 8% (25 of 322) increases in sensitivity, respectively (P = .007). The effects of the availability of prior FFDM images or DBT images did not significantly change regardless of the sequence in presentation (P = .81 and P = .47 for specificity and sensitivity, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The availability of prior FFDM or DBT images is a largely independent contributing factor in reducing recall recommendations during mammographic interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25768673      PMCID: PMC4485831          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.15142009

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


  17 in total

1.  Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms.

Authors:  M G Thurfjell; B Vitak; E Azavedo; G Svane; E Thurfjell
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.990

2.  Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Brenda L Holbert; Jennifer S Herrmann; Christiane A Hakim; Marie A Ganott; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Lara A Hardesty; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Marco Pellegrini; Silvia Brunelli; Paola Tuttobene; Paola Bricolo; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Stefania Montemezzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 41.316

6.  Impact of and interaction between the availability of prior examinations and DBT on the interpretation of negative and benign mammograms.

Authors:  Christiane M Hakim; Marie I Anello; Cathy S Cohen; Marie A Ganott; Amy H Lu; Ronald L Perrin; Ratan Shah; Marion Lee Spangler; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Eben; Ingvild N Jebsen; Mona Krager; Unni Haakenaasen; Ulrika Ekseth; Mina Izadi; Solveig Hofvind; Randi Gullien
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Brian M Haas; Vivek Kalra; Jaime Geisel; Madhavi Raghu; Melissa Durand; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Diana S M Buist; Sally D Herschorn; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Calling all calcifications: a retrospective case control study.

Authors:  Anand K Narayan; Delia M Keating; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

Authors:  Daniela Bernardi; Paolo Belli; Eva Benelli; Beniamino Brancato; Lauro Bucchi; Massimo Calabrese; Luca A Carbonaro; Francesca Caumo; Beatrice Cavallo-Marincola; Paola Clauser; Chiara Fedato; Alfonso Frigerio; Vania Galli; Livia Giordano; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Paola Golinelli; Doralba Morrone; Giovanna Mariscotti; Laura Martincich; Stefania Montemezzi; Carlo Naldoni; Adriana Paduos; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Fiammetta Querci; Antonio Rizzo; Gianni Saguatti; Alberto Tagliafico; Rubina M Trimboli; Marco Zappa; Chiara Zuiani; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Digital subtraction of temporally sequential mammograms for improved detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Authors:  Kosmia Loizidou; Galateia Skouroumouni; Costas Pitris; Christos Nikolaou
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2021-09-14

5.  Diagnostic Efficacy across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women.

Authors:  Ibrahim Hadadi; Jillian Clarke; William Rae; Mark McEntee; Wendy Vincent; Ernest Ekpo
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-16

6.  Change in Image Quality According to the 3D Locations of a CBCT Phantom.

Authors:  Jae Joon Hwang; Hyok Park; Ho-Gul Jeong; Sang-Sun Han
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.