Literature DB >> 27715711

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

Katrina E Korhonen1, Susan P Weinstein1, Elizabeth S McDonald1, Emily F Conant1.   

Abstract

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) represents a valuable addition to breast cancer screening by decreasing recall rates while increasing cancer detection rates. The increased accuracy achieved with DBT is due to the quasi-three-dimensional format of the reconstructed images and the ability to "scroll through" breast tissue in the reconstructed images, thereby reducing the effect of tissue superimposition found with conventional planar digital mammography. The margins of both benign and malignant lesions are more conspicuous at DBT, which allows improved lesion characterization, increased reader confidence, and improved screening outcomes. However, even with the improvements in accuracy achieved with DBT, there remain differences in breast cancer conspicuity by mammographic view. Early data suggest that breast cancers may be more conspicuous on craniocaudal (CC) views than on mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. While some very laterally located breast cancers may be visualized on only the MLO view, the increased conspicuity of cancers on the CC view compared with the MLO view suggests that DBT screening should be performed with two-view imaging. Even with the improved conspicuity of lesions at DBT, there may still be false-negative studies. Subtle lesions seen on only one view may be discounted, and dense and/or complex tissue patterns may make some cancers occult or extremely difficult to detect. Therefore, radiologists should be cognizant of both perceptual and cognitive errors to avoid potential pitfalls in lesion detection and characterization. ©RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27715711      PMCID: PMC5161511          DOI: 10.1148/rg.2016160049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  32 in total

1.  Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience.

Authors:  Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Nicolas Perrot; Sophie Dechoux; Carine Ribeiro; Jocelyne Chopier; Cedric de Bazelaire
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings.

Authors:  Kimberly M Ray; Estella Turner; Edward A Sickles; Bonnie N Joe
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Luke Partyka; Ana P Lourenco; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; R Edward Hendrick; Alicia Toledano; Jean R Paquelet; Elisabetta Bezzon; Roberta Chersevani; Cosimo di Maggio; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Enrica Baldan; Fabio Pomerri; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  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

6.  Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors.

Authors:  Jennifer J Donald; Stuart A Barnard
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.735

7.  Interpreting one-view mammographic findings: minimizing callbacks while maximizing cancer detection.

Authors:  Catherine S Giess; Elisabeth P Frost; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors.

Authors:  H C Burrell; D M Sibbering; A R Wilson; S E Pinder; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J F Robertson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       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.  Digital breast tomosynthesis changes management in patients seen at a tertiary care breast center.

Authors:  L Margolies; A Cohen; E Sonnenblick; J Mandeli; P H Schmidt; J Szabo; N Patel; G Hermann; C Weltz; E Port
Journal:  ISRN Radiol       Date:  2014-03-03
View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Imaging features of breast cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis according to molecular subtype: association with breast cancer detection.

Authors:  Su Hyun Lee; Jung Min Chang; Sung Ui Shin; A Jung Chu; Ann Yi; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-10-09       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.

Authors:  Katrina E Korhonen; Emily F Conant; Eric A Cohen; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  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

Review 6.  Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.

Authors:  Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 5.333

7.  Added Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Combined with Digital Mammography According to Reader Agreement: Changes in BI-RADS Rate and Follow-Up Management.

Authors:  Francesca Galati; Flaminia Marzocca; Erica Bassetti; Maria L Luciani; Sharon Tan; Carlo Catalano; Federica Pediconi
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  A multicenter study of a contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic classification of breast lesions.

Authors:  Lina Tang; Yijie Chen; Zhongshi Du; Zhaoming Zhong; Qin Chen; Lichun Yang; Ruoxia Shen; Yan Cheng; Zizhen Zhang; Ehui Han; Zhihong Lv; Lijun Yuan; Yong Yang; Yinrong Cheng; Lei Yang; Shengli Wang; Baoyan Bai; Jun Luo
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  Variation in digital breast tomosynthesis image quality at differing heights above the detector.

Authors:  Rob Davidson; Khaled Al Khalifah; Abel Zhou
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2021-12-27
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.