Literature DB >> 29429017

Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Per Skaane1, Sofie Sebuødegård2, Andriy I Bandos3, David Gur4, Bjørn Helge Østerås5, Randi Gullien6, Solveig Hofvind7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has the potential to overcome limitations of conventional mammography. This study investigated the effects of addition of DBT on interval and detected cancers in population-based screening.
METHODS: Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) was a prospective, independent double-reading trial inviting women 50-69 years biennially, comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT with FFDM alone. Performance indicators and characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared with two previous FFDM rounds.
RESULTS: 24,301 consenting women underwent FFDM + DBT screening over a 2-year period. Results were compared with 59,877 FFDM examinations during prior rounds. Addition of DBT resulted in a non-significant increase in sensitivity (76.2%, 378/496, vs. 80.8%, 227/281, p = 0.151) and a significant increase in specificity (96.4%, 57229/59381 vs. 97.5%, 23427/24020, p < .001). Number of recalls per screen-detected cancer decreased from 6.7 (2530/378) to 3.6 (820/227) with DBT (p < .001). Cancer detection per 1000 women screened increased (6.3, 378/59877, vs. 9.3, 227/24301, p < .001). Interval cancer rate per 1000 screens for FFDM + DBT remained similar to previous FFDM rounds (2.1, 51/24301 vs. 2.0, 118/59877, p = 0.734). Interval cancers post-DBT were comparable to prior rounds but significantly different in size, grade, and node status from cancers detected only using DBT. 39.6% (19/48) of interval cancers had positive nodes compared with only 3.9% (2/51) of additional DBT-only-detected cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: DBT-supplemented screening resulted in significant increases in screen-detected cancers and specificity. However, no significant change was observed in the rate, size, node status, or grade of interval cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01248546.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer screening; Breast neoplasms; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Interval breast cancer; Mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29429017     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2

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


  22 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.  An analysis of 11.3 million screening tests examining the association between recall and cancer detection rates in the English NHS breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  R G Blanks; R M Given-Wilson; S L Cohen; J Patnick; R J Alison; M G Wallis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  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

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.  Long-Term Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the United States.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; William E Barlow; Elizabeth S Burnside; Emily F Conant; John M Hampton; Hui Huang; Karla Kerlikowske; Sandra J Lee; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Martin J Yaffe; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Breast Cancer Screening Among Medically Underserved Women in New Mexico: Potential for Lower Recall Rates with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Martha T Manda-Mapalo; Stephanie G Fine; Sarah Safadi; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ruofei Du; Andrew L Sussman; Shiraz Mishra; Reed G Selwyn; Jennifer L Saline; Wendy L Hine; Ursa A Brown-Glaberman
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Evaluation of a new image reconstruction method for digital breast tomosynthesis: effects on the visibility of breast lesions and breast density.

Authors:  Julia Krammer; Sergei Zolotarev; Inge Hillman; Konstantinos Karalis; Dzmitry Stsepankou; Valeriy Vengrinovich; Jürgen Hesser; Tony M Svahn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.