Literature DB >> 26496565

Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Elizabeth S McDonald1, Anne Marie McCarthy2, Amana L Akhtar1, Marie B Synnestvedt3, Mitchell Schnall1, Emily F Conant1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Baseline mammography studies have significantly higher recall rates than mammography studies with available comparison examinations. Digital breast tomosynthesis reduces recalls when compared with digital mammographic screening alone, but many sites operate in a hybrid environment. To maximize the effect of screening digital breast tomosynthesis with limited resources, choosing which patient populations will benefit most is critical. This study evaluates digital breast tomosynthesis in the baseline screening population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes were compared for 10,728 women who underwent digital mammography screening, including 1204 (11.2%) baseline studies, and 15,571 women who underwent digital breast tomosynthesis screening, including 1859 (11.9%) baseline studies. Recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values were calculated. Logistic regression estimated the odds ratios of recall for digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for patients undergoing baseline screening and previously screened patients, adjusted for age, race, and breast density.
RESULTS: In the baseline subgroup, recall rates for digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis screening were 20.5% and 16.0%, respectively (p = 0.002); digital breast tomosynthesis screening in the baseline subgroup resulted in a 22% reduction in recall compared with digital mammography, or 45 fewer patients recalled per 1000 patients screened. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening in the previously screened patients resulted in recall reduction of 14.3% (p < 0.001; p for interaction = 0.21). The recall rate reduction for baseline screening was especially pronounced in women younger than 50 years (p = 0.005). DBT implementation resulted in an increase in cancer detection in the baseline subgroup of 40.5% versus an increase in the previously screened subgroup of 17.4%. DBT implementation resulted in an increase in PPV1 in the baseline subgroup of 85% versus 35.3% in the previously screened subgroup, although the p-interaction was not significant.
CONCLUSION: If resources are limited, women younger than 50 years who are undergoing baseline screening or do not have prior available mammograms may benefit more from digital breast tomosynthesis than from digital mammography alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  baseline screening; digital breast tomosynthesis; full-field digital mammography; recall; screening harms; screening mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26496565     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Assessment of disease extent on contrast-enhanced MRI in breast cancer detected at digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone.

Authors:  A V Chudgar; E F Conant; S P Weinstein; B M Keller; M Synnestvedt; P Yamartino; E S McDonald
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 3.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  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

5.  Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.

Authors:  Julie E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly A Harris; Rachael E Chicoine; Marie B Synnestvedt; Steve J Pyle; Jane S Chen; Sally D Herschorn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 5.532

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.  Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Samantha P Zuckerman; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Katrina E Korhonen; Julia A Birnbaum; Jennifer D Tobey; Mitchell D Schnall; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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 9.  Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.

Authors:  Katrina E Korhonen; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; William E Barlow; Sally D Herschorn; Donald L Weaver; Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Kathryn P Lowry; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander; Christopher I Li; Mitchell D Schnall; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.