Literature DB >> 28715278

BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Elizabeth S McDonald1, Anne Marie McCarthy1, Susan P Weinstein1, Mitchell D Schnall1, Emily F Conant1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 assessment at diagnostic examination after recall from screening in a large urban population after implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) by focusing both on overall use and use stratified by recalled finding type and outcome at 2 years. Materials and Methods This was an intuitional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of 10 728 digital mammography (DM) examinations from September 1, 2010, to August 30, 2011, and 15 571 screening DBT examinations from October 1, 2011, to February 28, 2013. The recall populations for DM and DBT were 1112 of 10 728 (10.4% of women screened) and 1366 of 15 571 (8.8% of women screened), respectively. Recall examinations were classified according to finding type: calcifications, asymmetry or focal asymmetry, mass, and architectural distortion. Differences between groups were compared by using the χ2 test. Results Although there was no significant change in the utilization rate of BI-RADS category 3 in those patients screened with DM compared with DBT (168 of 10 728, 1.6% for DM vs 206 of 15 571, 1.3% for DBT; P = .102), there was a mean overall reduction of 2.4 women per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.5, 5.4) recommended for short-term follow-up. Lesion types given a BI-RADS category 3 assessment after diagnostic work-up did not change. The distribution of recalled finding types significantly changed with DBT, with increased recall examinations for architectural distortion and mass (P < .001) and decreased recall examinations for asymmetries (P ≤ .001). There was no change in recall examinations for calcifications (P = .977). Conclusion Screening with DBT did not significantly change the utilization rate of BI-RADS category 3 classification; however, the overall number of patients recommended for short-interval follow-up decreased by a mean of 2.4 women per 1000 (95% CI: -0.5, 5.4). © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28715278      PMCID: PMC5708302          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162837

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


  29 in total

1.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

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

2.  Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis.

Authors:  R J Brenner; E A Sickles
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Cost-Effectiveness of Tomosynthesis in Annual Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Vivek B Kalra; Xiao Wu; Brian M Haas; Howard P Forman; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.

Authors:  Madhavi Raghu; Melissa A Durand; Liva Andrejeva; Alexander Goehler; Mark H Michalski; Jaime L Geisel; Regina J Hooley; Laura J Horvath; Reni Butler; Howard P Forman; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn A Abraham; Constance D Lehman; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Jennifer H Voeks; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Cost minimization analysis of ultrasound-guided diagnostic evaluation of probably benign breast lesions.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Colin J Wells; Lawrence W Bassett
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  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

View more
  4 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Repeat and single dose administration of gadodiamide to rats to investigate concentration and location of gadolinium and the cell ultrastructure.

Authors:  Julie Davies; Michael Marino; Adrian P L Smith; Janell M Crowder; Michael Larsen; Lisa Lowery; Jason Castle; Mark G Hibberd; Paul M Evans
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.