Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner1,2, Alexander Jaensch1,2, Astrid Hacker1, Sabina Wulz-Horber2, Thomas Mertelmeier3, Dieter Hölzel4. 1. Em. Head of IBE Institute of Biomathematics and Epidemiology, National Reference Centre Mammography Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Em. Head of IBE Institute of Biomathematics and Epidemiology, Brustdiagnostik München, Munich, Germany. 3. Em. Head of IBE Institute of Biomathematics and Epidemiology, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Em. Head of IBE Institute of Biomathematics and Epidemiology, Clinical Cancer Registry, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to countercheck the equivalence of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or DBT with additional views (DBT+AV) compared to traditional standard assessment by additional views (AV) in patients with a screen-detected abnormality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a screen-detected abnormality were consecutively invited to obtain 1 single-view wide-angle DBT in addition to the indicated AV. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection. RESULTS: This study is based on 311 lesions in 285 patients with a follow-up of > 2 years and/or biopsy. Counting BI-RADS 0 and 3 as positive calls, the sensitivity/specificity of DBT+AV versus DBT only versus AV only were 96.4/54.3%, 96.4/56.6%, and 90.9/42.2%, respectively. The specificities and BI-RADS classifications differed significantly (p < 0.01). AV appeared unnecessary in 88.8% of the cases. CONCLUSION: DBT appeared to be at least equivalent to AV for assessing indeterminate screen-detected lesions and could replace AV for most lesions. To obtain the extra information appears possible without increasing the overall radiation dose. Subsequent blinded reader studies are ongoing.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to countercheck the equivalence of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or DBT with additional views (DBT+AV) compared to traditional standard assessment by additional views (AV) in patients with a screen-detected abnormality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a screen-detected abnormality were consecutively invited to obtain 1 single-view wide-angle DBT in addition to the indicated AV. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection. RESULTS: This study is based on 311 lesions in 285 patients with a follow-up of > 2 years and/or biopsy. Counting BI-RADS 0 and 3 as positive calls, the sensitivity/specificity of DBT+AV versus DBT only versus AV only were 96.4/54.3%, 96.4/56.6%, and 90.9/42.2%, respectively. The specificities and BI-RADS classifications differed significantly (p < 0.01). AV appeared unnecessary in 88.8% of the cases. CONCLUSION: DBT appeared to be at least equivalent to AV for assessing indeterminate screen-detected lesions and could replace AV for most lesions. To obtain the extra information appears possible without increasing the overall radiation dose. Subsequent blinded reader studies are ongoing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assessment; Breast imaging; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Screening
Authors: Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P Whelehan; S H Heywang-Köbrunner; S J Vinnicombe; A Hacker; A Jänsch; A Hapca; R Gray; M Jenkin; K Lowry; R Oeppen; M Reilly; M Stahnke; A Evans Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Amy E Kelly; Victor J Catullo; Grace Y Rathfon; Amy H Lu; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel A Craig; Tanya L Hoskins; Tara L Henrichsen; Emily C Bendel; Stephanie R Brandt; Jay Mandrekar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J C Morel; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; C Peacock; D R Evans; R Rahim; J Goligher; M J Michell Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Harry J de Koning; Jan Willem Coebergh; Mike van Beek; Marianne J H H Hooijen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Eleanor J Cornford; Anne E Turnbull; Jonathan J James; Rachel Tsang; Tayeba Akram; Helen C Burrell; Lisa J Hamilton; Sarah L Tennant; Mark J Bagnall; Shama Puri; Graham R Ball; Yan Chen; Vivienne Jones Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Lourdes Carrera; Jessica Beltrán; Margarita Posso; David Rigau; Annette Lebeau; Axel Gräwingholt; Xavier Castells; Miranda Langendam; Elsa Pérez; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Ruben Van Engen; Elena Parmelli; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 4.452