Literature DB >> 29494322

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Solveig Hofvind1, Tone Hovda1, Åsne S Holen1, Christoph I Lee1, Judy Albertsen1, Hilde Bjørndal1, Siri H B Brandal1, Randi Gullien1, Jon Lømo1, Daehoon Park1, Linda Romundstad1, Pål Suhrke1, Einar Vigeland1, Per Skaane1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) with that of digital mammography (DM) in a population-based mammographic screening program. Materials and Methods In this prospective cohort study, data from 37 185 women screened with DBT and SM and from 61 742 women screened with DM as part of a population-based screening program in 2014 and 2015 were included. Early performance measures, including recall rate due to abnormal mammographic findings, rate of screen-detected breast cancer, positive predictive value of recall, positive predictive value of needle biopsy, histopathologic type, tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node involvement, hormonal status, Ki-67 level, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status were compared in women who underwent DBT and SM screening and in those who underwent DM screening by using χ2 tests, two-sample unpaired t tests, and tests of proportions. Results Recall rates were 3.4% for DBT and SM screening and 3.3% for DM screening (P = .563). DBT and SM screening showed a significantly higher rate of screen-detected cancer compared with DM screening (9.4 vs 6.1 cancers per 1000 patients screened, respectively; P < .001). The rate of detection of tumors 10 mm or smaller was 3.2 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM and 1.8 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001), and the rate of grade 1 tumors was 3.3 per 1000 patients screened with DBT and SM versus 1.4 per 1000 patients screened with DM (P < .001). On the basis of immunohistochemical analyses, rates of lymph node involvement and tumor subtypes did not differ between women who underwent DBT and SM screening and those who underwent DM screening. Conclusion DBT and SM screening increased the detection rate of histologically favorable tumors compared with that attained with DM screening. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29494322     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018171361

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


  26 in total

1.  Assessment of MRI-detected lesions on screening tomosynthesis in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Sadia Choudhery; Eric Polley; Amy Lynn Conners
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 2.  Novel imaging approaches to screen for breast cancer: Recent advances and future prospects.

Authors:  Christopher L Vaughan
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.242

3.  Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Is MRI Alone Enough?

Authors:  Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Almir G V Bitencourt; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  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

5.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Mundher Al-Shabi; Wai Yee Chan; Leya Thomas; Kartini Rahmat; Kwan Hoong Ng
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  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

7.  Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?

Authors:  Sadia Choudhery; Jessica Axmacher; Amy Lynn Conners; Jennifer Geske; Kathy Brandt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.