Literature DB >> 29294150

Prospective study aiming to compare 2D mammography and tomosynthesis + synthesized mammography in terms of cancer detection and recall. From double reading of 2D mammography to single reading of tomosynthesis.

Sara Romero Martín1, Jose Luis Raya Povedano2, María Cara García2, Ana Luz Santos Romero2, Margarita Pedrosa Garriguet2, Marina Álvarez Benito2.   

Abstract

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

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29294150     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5219-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  15 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study.

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

2.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Priorities for the primary prevention of breast cancer.

Authors:  Graham A Colditz; Kari Bohlke
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.

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

5.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

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

6.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Authors:  Stefano Ciatto; Nehmat Houssami; Daniela Bernardi; Francesca Caumo; Marco Pellegrini; Silvia Brunelli; Paola Tuttobene; Paola Bricolo; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Stefania Montemezzi; Petra Macaskill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  [Breast cancer screening: current status].

Authors:  M Mellado Rodríguez; A M Osa Labrador
Journal:  Radiologia       Date:  2012-08-28

8.  The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone.

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

9.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Anders Tingberg; Pontus Timberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration.

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

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Advances in breast cancer screening modalities and status of global screening programs.

Authors:  Chenyu Luo; Le Wang; Yuhan Zhang; Ming Lu; Bin Lu; Jie Cai; Hongda Chen; Min Dai
Journal:  Chronic Dis Transl Med       Date:  2022-05-25

2.  Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Solveig Hofvind; Anne L Soerensen; Kristy P Robledo; Kylie Hunter; Daniela Bernardi; Kristina Lång; Kristin Johnson; Camilla F Aglen; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-03-20

Review 3.  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

4.  Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rodrigo Rosa Giampietro; Marcos Vinicius Gama Cabral; Silvana Andrea Molina Lima; Silke Anna Theresa Weber; Vania Dos Santos Nunes-Nogueira
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Image Quality Comparison between Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images and 2D Mammographic Images Using the CDMAM Test Object.

Authors:  Ioannis A Tsalafoutas; Angeliki C Epistatou; Konstantinos K Delibasis
Journal:  J Imaging       Date:  2022-08-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.