Jules H Sumkin1, Marie A Ganott1, Denise M Chough1, Victor J Catullo1, Margarita L Zuley1, Dilip D Shinde1, Christiane M Hakim1, Andriy I Bandos2, David Gur3. 1. Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Radiology, Radiology Imaging Research, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Electronic address: gurd@upmc.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Assess results of a prospective, single-site clinical study evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) during baseline screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under an institutional review board-approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant protocol, consenting women between ages 34 and 56 years scheduled for their initial and/or baseline screening mammogram underwent both full field digital mammography (FFDM) and DBT. The FFDM and the FFDM plus DBT images were interpreted independently in a reader by mode balanced approach by two of 14 participating radiologists. A woman was recalled for a diagnostic work-up if either radiologist recommended a recall. We report overall recall rates and related diagnostic outcome from the 1080 participants. Proportion of recommended recalls (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0) were compared using a generalized linear mixed model (SAS 9.3) with a significance level of P = .0294. RESULTS: The fraction of women without breast cancer recommended for recall using FFDM alone and FFDM plus DBT were 412 of 1074 (38.4%) and 274 of 1074 (25.5%), respectively (P < .001). Large inter-reader variability in terms of recall reduction was observed among the 14 readers; however, 11 of 14 readers recalled fewer women using FFDM plus DBT (5 with P < .015). Six cancers (four ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS] and two invasive ductal carcinomas [IDC]) were detected. One IDC was detected only on DBT and one DCIS cancer was detected only on FFDM, whereas the remaining cancers were detected on both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FFDM plus DBT resulted in a significant decrease in recall rates during baseline screening mammography with no reduction in sensitivity.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Assess results of a prospective, single-site clinical study evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) during baseline screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Under an institutional review board-approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant protocol, consenting women between ages 34 and 56 years scheduled for their initial and/or baseline screening mammogram underwent both full field digital mammography (FFDM) and DBT. The FFDM and the FFDM plus DBT images were interpreted independently in a reader by mode balanced approach by two of 14 participating radiologists. A woman was recalled for a diagnostic work-up if either radiologist recommended a recall. We report overall recall rates and related diagnostic outcome from the 1080 participants. Proportion of recommended recalls (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0) were compared using a generalized linear mixed model (SAS 9.3) with a significance level of P = .0294. RESULTS: The fraction of women without breast cancer recommended for recall using FFDM alone and FFDM plus DBT were 412 of 1074 (38.4%) and 274 of 1074 (25.5%), respectively (P < .001). Large inter-reader variability in terms of recall reduction was observed among the 14 readers; however, 11 of 14 readers recalled fewer women using FFDM plus DBT (5 with P < .015). Six cancers (four ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS] and two invasive ductal carcinomas [IDC]) were detected. One IDC was detected only on DBT and one DCIS cancer was detected only on FFDM, whereas the remaining cancers were detected on both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FFDM plus DBT resulted in a significant decrease in recall rates during baseline screening mammography with no reduction in sensitivity.
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Per Skaane; 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 Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.173
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
Authors: Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Harm van Tinteren; Emiel J T Rutgers; Sara H Muller; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ana P Lourenco; Marilyn Barry-Brooks; Grayson L Baird; Ashley Tuttle; Martha B Mainiero Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Serena Pacilè; January Lopez; Pauline Chone; Thomas Bertinotti; Jean Marie Grouin; Pierre Fillard Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2020-11-04
Authors: Thao-Quyen H Ho; Michael C S Bissell; Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-03-01