Literature DB >> 27467468

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

Samantha P Zuckerman1, Emily F Conant1, Brad M Keller1, Andrew D A Maidment1, Bruno Barufaldi1, Susan P Weinstein1, Marie Synnestvedt1, Elizabeth S McDonald1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the early implementation of synthesized two-dimensional (s2D) mammography in a population screened entirely with s2D and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (referred to as s2D/DBT) and compare recall rates and cancer detection rates to historic outcomes of digital mammography combined with DBT (referred to as digital mammography/DBT) screening. Materials and Methods This was an institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant retrospective interpretation of prospectively acquired data with waiver of informed consent. Compared were recall rates, biopsy rates, cancer detection rates, and radiation dose for 15 571 women screened with digital mammography/DBT from October 1, 2011, to February 28, 2013, and 5366 women screened with s2D/DBT from January 7, 2015, to June 30, 2015. Two-sample z tests of equal proportions were used to determine statistical significance. Results Recall rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT was 7.1% versus 8.8%, respectively (P < .001). Biopsy rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT decreased (1.3% vs 2.0%, respectively; P = .001). There was no significant difference in cancer detection rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT (5.03 of 1000 vs 5.45 of 1000, respectively; P = .72). The average glandular dose was 39% lower in s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT (4.88 mGy vs 7.97 mGy, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Screening with s2D/DBT in a large urban practice resulted in similar outcomes compared with digital mammography/DBT imaging. Screening with s2D/DBT allowed for the benefits of DBT with a decrease in radiation dose compared with digital mammography/DBT. © RSNA, 2016 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 11, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27467468      PMCID: PMC5131829          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160366

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


  17 in total

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

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  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

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

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 5.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  T M Svahn; N Houssami; I Sechopoulos; S Mattsson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen Gc Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Hema Purushothaman; Celia Strudley; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.014

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.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Amana L Akhtar; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  38 in total

1.  Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.

Authors:  Akiko Daidoji; Takatoshi Aoki; Seiichi Murakami; Mari Miyata; Masami Fujii; Takefumi Katsuki; Yuzuru Inoue; Yuko Tashima; Yoshika Nagata; Keiji Hirata; Fumihiro Tanaka; Yukunori Korogi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  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

3.  Trends in Clinical Breast Density Assessment From the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  B L Sprague; K Kerlikowske; E J A Bowles; G H Rauscher; C I Lee; A N A Tosteson; D L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  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

5.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Mundher Al-Shabi; Wai Yee Chan; Leya Thomas; Kartini Rahmat; Kwan Hoong Ng
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.

Authors:  Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele Maria Tucciariello; Antonio Traino; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria Evelina Fantacci
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2020-11-23

7.  Comparing search patterns in digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography: an eye tracking study.

Authors:  Avi Aizenman; Trafton Drew; Krista A Ehinger; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-27

Review 8.  Beyond BI-RADS Density: A Call for Quantification in the Breast Imaging Clinic.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Quantitative assessment of microcalcification cluster image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis, 2-dimensional and synthetic mammography.

Authors:  Andreas E Petropoulos; Spyros G Skiadopoulos; Anna N Karahaliou; Gerasimos A T Messaris; Nikolaos S Arikidis; Lena I Costaridou
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-12-07       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.