Literature DB >> 26391857

Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.

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.   

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.
Copyright © 2015 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mammography; initial examination; recall; screening; tomosynthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26391857      PMCID: PMC4636945          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  31 in total

Review 1.  Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Audits measure practice quality of mammography.

Authors:  M N Linver
Journal:  Diagn Imaging (San Franc)       Date:  2000-07

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Alicia Toledano; Cosimo di Maggio; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Aida Toffoli; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.

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

5.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

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

6.  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

7.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.

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

8.  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

9.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results.

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

10.  Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis.

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

View more
  4 in total

1.  Improving Breast Cancer Detection Accuracy of Mammography with the Concurrent Use of an Artificial Intelligence Tool.

Authors:  Serena Pacilè; January Lopez; Pauline Chone; Thomas Bertinotti; Jean Marie Grouin; Pierre Fillard
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2020-11-04

Review 2.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Authors:  A Hadjipanteli; M Kontos; A Constantinidou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rodrigo Rosa Giampietro; Marcos Vinicius Gama Cabral; Silvana Andrea Molina Lima; Silke Anna Theresa Weber; Vania Dos Santos Nunes-Nogueira
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.