Literature DB >> 26893205

Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.

Elizabeth S McDonald1, Andrew Oustimov2, Susan P Weinstein1, Marie B Synnestvedt3, Mitchell Schnall1, Emily F Conant1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) decreases false-positive examinations and increases cancer detection compared with screening with DM alone. However, the longitudinal performance of DBT screening is unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the improved outcomes observed after initial implementation of DBT screening are sustainable over time at a population level and to evaluate the effect of more than 1 DBT screening at the individual level. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of screening mammography metrics was performed for all patients presenting for screening mammography in an urban, academic breast center during 4 consecutive years (DM, year 0; DBT, years, 1-3). The study was conducted from September 1, 2010, to September 30, 2014 (excluding September 2011, which was the transition period from DM to DBT), for a total of 44 468 screening events attributable to a total of 23 958 unique women. Differences in screening outcomes between each DBT year and the DM year, as well as between groups of women with only 1, 2, or 3 DBT screenings, were assessed, and the odds of recall adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, breast density, and prior mammograms were estimated. Data analysis was performed between February 16 and October 26, 2015. EXPOSURE: Digital mammography screening supplemented with DBT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Recall rates, cancer cases per recalled patients, and biopsy and interval cancer rates were determined.
RESULTS: Screening outcome metrics were evaluated for a total of 44 468 examinations attributable to 23 958 unique women (mean [SD] age, 56.8 [11.0] years) over a 4-year period: year 0 cohort (DM0), 10 728 women; year 1 cohort (DBT1), 11 007; year 2 cohort (DBT2), 11 157; and year 3 cohort (DBT3), 11 576. Recall rates rose slightly for years 1 to 3 of DBT (88, 90, and 92 per 1000 screened, respectively) but remained significantly reduced compared with the DM0 rate of 104 per 1000 screened. Reported as odds ratios (95% CIs), the findings were DM vs DBT1, 0.83 (0.76-0.91, P < .001); DM vs DBT2, 0.85 (0.78-0.93, P < .001); and DM vs DBT3, 0.87 (0.80-0.95, P = .003). The cancer cases per recalled patients continued to rise from DM0 rate of 4.4% to 6.2% (P = .06), 6.5% (P = .03), and 6.7% (P = .02) for years 1 to 3 of DBT, respectively. Outcomes assessed for the most recent screening for individual women undergoing only 1, 2, or 3 DBT screenings during the study period demonstrated decreasing recall rates of 130, 78, and 59 per 1000 screened, respectively (P < .001). Interval cancer rates, determined using available follow-up data, decreased from 0.7 per 1000 women screened with the use of DM to 0.5 per 1000 screened with the use of DBT1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Digital breast tomosynthesis screening outcomes are sustainable, with significant recall reduction, increasing cancer cases per recalled patients, and a decline in interval cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26893205     DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Oncol        ISSN: 2374-2437            Impact factor:   31.777


  54 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.  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

Review 3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  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 5.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Utility of Clinical Breast Examinations in Detecting Local-Regional Breast Events After Breast-Conservation in Women with a Personal History of High-Risk Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Heather B Neuman; Jessica R Schumacher; Amanda B Francescatti; Taiwo Adesoye; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth S Burnside; David J Vanness; Menggang Yu; Yajuan Si; Dan McKellar; David P Winchester; Caprice C Greenberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-08-04       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density.

Authors:  Stefanie Weigel; W Heindel; J Heidrich; H-W Hense; O Heidinger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  How Can Advanced Imaging Be Used to Mitigate Potential Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis?

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Elizabeth S McDonald; Janie M Lee; Savannah C Partridge; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  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

10.  Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

Authors:  Valérie D V Sankatsing; Karolina Juraniec; Sabine E Grimm; Manuela A Joore; Ruud M Pijnappel; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.