Literature DB >> 29272213

Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers.

Manisha Bahl1, Shannon Gaffney1, Anne Marie McCarthy1, Kathryn P Lowry1, Pragya A Dang1, Constance D Lehman1.   

Abstract

Purpose To determine whether the rates and tumor characteristics of screening-detected and interval cancers differ for two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography. Materials and Methods Consecutive screening mammograms from January 2009 to February 2011 (DM group, before DBT integration) and from January 2013 to February 2015 (DBT group, after complete DBT integration) were reviewed. Cancers were considered screening detected if diagnosed within 365 days of a positive screening examination and interval if diagnosed within 365 days of a negative screening examination. Z tests were used to compare cancers on DM versus DBT examinations. Results A total of 948 breast cancers were diagnosed after 78 385 DM and 76 896 DBT examinations. Although the overall rate of screening-detected cancers was similar with DM and DBT (5.0 vs 5.0 per 1000 examinations, P = .98), a higher proportion of screening-detected cancers were invasive rather than in situ with DBT (74.2% [287 of 387] vs 66.0% [260 of 394], P = .01). There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics, including size at pathologic examination, grade, hormone receptor status, and nodal status, between the screening-detected invasive cancers on DM versus DBT (P = .09-.99). The rate of interval cancers was similar with DM and DBT (1.1 vs 1.1 per 1000 examinations, P = .84). Compared with symptomatic interval cancers, magnetic resonance imaging-detected interval cancers were more likely to be minimal cancers. Conclusion The overall rates of screening-detected and interval cancers are similar with DM and DBT, but a higher proportion of screening-detected cancers are invasive rather than in situ with DBT. © RSNA, 2017.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29272213     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017171148

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


  15 in total

1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade.

Authors:  Geunwon Kim; Peter G Mikhael; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  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

3.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

4.  Consecutive Screening Rounds with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Enable Detection of Breast Cancers with Poor Prognosis.

Authors:  Linda Moy; Samantha L Heller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.

Authors:  Valérie D V Sankatsing; Karolina Juraniec; Sabine E Grimm; Manuela A Joore; Ruud M Pijnappel; Harry J de Koning; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  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

7.  Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; R Yates Coley; Karla Kerlikowske; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Sally D Herschorn; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-03-02

8.  Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl; Sarah Mercaldo; Charmi A Vijapura; Anne Marie McCarthy; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; William E Barlow; Sally D Herschorn; Donald L Weaver; Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Kathryn P Lowry; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander; Christopher I Li; Mitchell D Schnall; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 10.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.