OBJECTIVES: To evaluate tomosynthesis compared with 2D-mammography in cancer detection and recalls in a screening-programme, and assess performing synthesized instead of 2D, and compare double reading of 2D with single reading of tomosynthesis. METHODS: Women (age 50-69 years) participating in the screening-programme were included. 2D-mammography and tomosynthesis were performed. There were four reading models: 2D-mammography (first); 2D-mammography (second); tomosynthesis + synthesized (third); tomosynthesis + synthesized + 2D (fourth reading). Paired double reading of 2D (first+second) and tomosynthesis (third+fourth) were analysed. RESULTS: In 16,067 participants, there were 98 cancers and 1,196 recalls. Comparing double reading of 2D with single reading of tomosynthesis, there was an increase of 12.6 % in cancer detection with the third reading (p= 0.043) and 6.9 % with the fourth reading (p=0.210), and a decrease in recalls of 40.5 % (p<0.001) and 44.4 % (p<0.001), respectively. With double reading of both techniques, there was an increase in cancer detection of 17.4 % (p = 0.004) and a decrease in recalls of 12.5 % (p = 0.001) with tomosynthesis. CONCLUSION: Single reading of tomosynthesis plus synthesized increased cancer detection and decreased recalls compared with double reading 2D. 2D did not improve results when added to tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases recall rates versus 2D mammography. • Synthesized-mammography avoids performing 2D, showing higher cancer detection. • Single reading of tomosynthesis + synthesized is feasible as a new practice.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate tomosynthesis compared with 2D-mammography in cancer detection and recalls in a screening-programme, and assess performing synthesized instead of 2D, and compare double reading of 2D with single reading of tomosynthesis. METHODS:Women (age 50-69 years) participating in the screening-programme were included. 2D-mammography and tomosynthesis were performed. There were four reading models: 2D-mammography (first); 2D-mammography (second); tomosynthesis + synthesized (third); tomosynthesis + synthesized + 2D (fourth reading). Paired double reading of 2D (first+second) and tomosynthesis (third+fourth) were analysed. RESULTS: In 16,067 participants, there were 98 cancers and 1,196 recalls. Comparing double reading of 2D with single reading of tomosynthesis, there was an increase of 12.6 % in cancer detection with the third reading (p= 0.043) and 6.9 % with the fourth reading (p=0.210), and a decrease in recalls of 40.5 % (p<0.001) and 44.4 % (p<0.001), respectively. With double reading of both techniques, there was an increase in cancer detection of 17.4 % (p = 0.004) and a decrease in recalls of 12.5 % (p = 0.001) with tomosynthesis. CONCLUSION: Single reading of tomosynthesis plus synthesized increased cancer detection and decreased recalls compared with double reading 2D. 2D did not improve results when added to tomosynthesis. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases recall rates versus 2D mammography. • Synthesized-mammography avoids performing 2D, showing higher cancer detection. • Single reading of tomosynthesis + synthesized is feasible as a new practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Mammography; Radiology; Screening
Authors: Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315