Literature DB >> 28780702

Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice.

Phoebe E Freer1, Joanna Riegert2, Laura Eisenmenger3, Dominik Ose4, Nicole Winkler2, Matthew A Stein2, Gregory J Stoddard5, Rachel Hess4,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most published studies evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) included a separate 2-dimensional full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) for DBT screening protocols, increasing radiation from screening mammography. Synthesized mammography (SM) creates a 2-dimensional image from the DBT source data, and if used in place of FFDM, it reduces radiation of DBT screening. This study evaluated the implementation of SM + DBT in routine screening practice in terms of recall rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), % of minimal cancers, % of node-positive cancers, and positive predictive values (PPV).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multivariate retrospective institutional analysis was performed on 31,979 women who obtained screening mammography (10/2013-12/2015) with cohorts divided by modality (SM + DBT, FFDM + DBT, and FFDM). We adjusted for comparison mammograms, age, breast density, and the interpreting radiologist. Recall type was analyzed for differences (focal asymmetry, asymmetry, masses, calcifications, architectural distortion).
RESULTS: SM + DBT significantly decreased the recall rate compared to FFDM (5.52 vs. 7.83%, p < 0.001) with no differences in overall CDR (p = 0.66), invasive and/or in situ CDR, or percentages of minimal and node-negative cancers. PPV1 significantly increased with SM + DBT relative to FFDM (9.1 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.02). SM + DBT did not differ significantly in recall rate or overall CDR compared to FFDM + DBT. There were statistically significant differences in certain findings recalled by screening modality (e.g., focal asymmetries).
CONCLUSIONS: SM + DBT reduces false positives compared to FFDM, while maintaining the CDR and other desirable audit outcome data. SM + DBT is more accurate than FFDM alone, and is a desirable alternative to FFDM + DBT, given the added benefit of radiation reduction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Cancer detection; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Mammography; Screening; Tomosynthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28780702     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  11 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.  Comparative Benefit-to-Radiation Risk Ratio of Molecular Breast Imaging, Two-Dimensional Full-Field Digital Mammography with and without Tomosynthesis, and Synthetic Mammography with Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Matthew Brown; Matthew F Covington
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-09-27

3.  Advanced Imaging for Precision Medicine in Breast Cancer: From Morphology to Function.

Authors:  Katja Pinker
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Survey Results Regarding Uptake and Impact of Synthetic Digital Mammography With Tomosynthesis in the Screening Setting.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 5.  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

6.  Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Mostafa Alabousi; Akshay Wadera; Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita; Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa; Jean-Paul Salameh; Alex Pozdnyakov; Nanxi Zha; Lucy Samoilov; Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; Behnam Sadeghirad; Vivianne Freitas; Matthew Df McInnes; Abdullah Alabousi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial.

Authors:  Hildegunn S Aase; Åsne S Holen; Kristin Pedersen; Nehmat Houssami; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Sofie Sebuødegård; Berit Hanestad; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Authors:  A Hadjipanteli; M Kontos; A Constantinidou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.989

9.  Virtual clinical trial to compare cancer detection using combinations of 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D imaging.

Authors:  Alistair Mackenzie; Emma L Thomson; Melissa Mitchell; Premkumar Elangovan; Chantal van Ongeval; Lesley Cockmartin; Lucy M Warren; Louise S Wilkinson; Matthew G Wallis; Rosalind M Given-Wilson; David R Dance; Kenneth C Young
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Synthesized Mammography: Clinical Evidence, Appearance, and Implementation.

Authors:  Melissa A Durand
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.