Literature DB >> 26176654

Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial).

Fiona J Gilbert1, Lorraine Tucker1, Maureen G C Gillan1, Paula Willsher1, Julie Cooke1, Karen A Duncan1, Michael J Michell1, Hilary M Dobson1, Yit Yoong Lim1, Tamara Suaris1, Susan M Astley1, Oliver Morrish1, Kenneth C Young1, Stephen W Duffy1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional (2D) mammography, 2D mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT in depicting malignant radiographic features.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study (the TOMMY trial), after written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean, 56 years) were recruited from July 2011 to March 2013 in an ethically approved study. From these women, a reading dataset of 7060 cases was randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammography images, (b) 2D mammography plus DBT images, and (c) synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT images. Reviewers had no access to results of previous examinations. Overall sensitivities and specificities were calculated for younger women and those with dense breasts.
RESULTS: Overall sensitivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT. The addition of DBT was associated with a 34% increase in the odds of depicting cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, P = .06); however, this level did not achieve significance. For patients aged 50-59 years old, sensitivity was significantly higher (P = .01) for 2D mammography plus DBT than it was for 2D mammography. For those with breast density of 50% or more, sensitivity was 86% for 2D mammography compared with 93% for 2D mammography plus DBT (P = .03). Specificity was 57% for 2D mammography, 70% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 72% for synthetic 2D mammography plusmDBT. Specificity was significantly higher than 2D mammography (P < .001in both cases) and was observed for all subgroups (P < .001 for all cases).
CONCLUSION: The addition of DBT increased the sensitivity of 2D mammography in patients with dense breasts and the specificity of 2D mammography for all subgroups. The use of synthetic 2D DBT demonstrated performance similar to that of standard 2D mammography with DBT. DBT is of potential benefit to screening programs, particularly in younger women with dense breasts. (©) RSNA, 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26176654     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142566

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


  37 in total

1.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  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

3.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?

Authors:  Kazuaki Nakashima; Takayoshi Uematsu; Takahiro Itoh; Kaoru Takahashi; Seiichirou Nishimura; Tomomi Hayashi; Takashi Sugino
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.

Authors:  Julia Garayoa; Margarita Chevalier; Maria Castillo; Ignacio Mahillo-Fernández; Najim Amallal El Ouahabi; Carmen Estrada; Alejandro Tejerina; Olivia Benitez; Julio Valverde
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; D Bernardi; N Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Survey Results Regarding Uptake and Impact of Synthetic Digital Mammography With Tomosynthesis in the Screening Setting.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today?

Authors:  J M Seely; T Alhassan
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.677

9.  Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.

Authors:  Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 5.333

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.