Literature DB >> 29846804

Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

S Mall1, J Noakes2, M Kossoff2, W Lee2, M McKessar2, A Goy2, J Duncombe2, M Roberts2, B Giuffre2, A Miller2, N Bhola2, C Kapoor2, C Shearman2, G DaCosta2, S Choi2, J Sterba2, M Kay2, K Bruderlin2, N Winarta2, K Donohue2, B Macdonell-Scott2, F Klijnsma2, K Suzuki2, P Brennan3, C Mello-Thoms3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with standard digital mammography (DM) workup views in the breast cancer assessment clinic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Tomosynthesis Assessment Clinic trial (TACT), conducted between 16 October 2014 and 19 April 2016, is an ethics-approved, monocenter, multireader, multicase split-plot reading study. After written informed consent was obtained, 144 females (age > 40 years) who were recalled to the assessment clinic were recruited into TACT. These cases (48 cancers) were randomly allocated for blinded review of (1) DM workup and (2) DBT, both in conjunction with previous DM from the screening examination. Fifteen radiologists of varying experience levels in the Australia BreastScreen Program were included in this study, wherein each radiologist read 48 cases (16 cancers) in 3 non-overlapping blocks. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to determine radiologists' performances.
RESULTS: Use of DBT (AUC = 0.927) led to improved performance of the radiologists (z = 2.62, p = 0.008) compared with mammography workup (AUC = 0.872). Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of DBT (0.93, 0.75, 0.64, 0.96) were higher than those of the workup (0.90, 0.56, 0.49, 0.92). Most radiologists (80%) performed better with DBT than standard workup. Cancerous lesions on DBT appeared more severe (U = 33,172, p = 0.02) and conspicuous (U = 24,207, p = 0.02). There was a significant reduction in the need for additional views (χ2 = 17.63, p < 0.001) and recommendations for ultrasound (χ2 = 8.56, p = 0.003) with DBT.
CONCLUSIONS: DBT has the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy and simplify the assessment process in the breast cancer assessment clinic. KEY POINTS: • Use of DBT in the assessment clinic results in increased diagnostic accuracy. • Use of DBT in the assessment clinic improves performance of radiologists and also increases the confidence in their decisions. • DBT may reduce the need for additional views, ultrasound imaging, and biopsy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2D mammography; 3D mammography; Breast cancer; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29846804     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5473-4

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


  20 in total

1.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

Authors:  Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography.

Authors:  J C Morel; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; C Peacock; D R Evans; R Rahim; J Goligher; M J Michell
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  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

4.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.

Authors:  T Svahn; I Andersson; D Chakraborty; S Svensson; D Ikeda; D Förnvik; S Mattsson; A Tingberg; S Zackrisson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 0.972

5.  Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Additional Views for the Assessment of Screen-Detected Abnormalities - a First Analysis.

Authors:  Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jaensch; Astrid Hacker; Sabina Wulz-Horber; Thomas Mertelmeier; Dieter Hölzel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  With the Advent of Tomosynthesis in the Workup of Mammographic Abnormality, is Spot Compression Mammography Now Obsolete? An Initial Clinical Experience.

Authors:  Neasa Ni Mhuircheartaigh; Louise Coffey; Hannah Fleming; Ann O' Doherty; Sorcha McNally
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Eun Young Chae; Hak Hee Kim; Joo Hee Cha; Hee Jung Shin; Woo Jung Choi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions.

Authors:  Eleanor J Cornford; Anne E Turnbull; Jonathan J James; Rachel Tsang; Tayeba Akram; Helen C Burrell; Lisa J Hamilton; Sarah L Tennant; Mark J Bagnall; Shama Puri; Graham R Ball; Yan Chen; Vivienne Jones
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Diagnostic Setting: Additional Value and Cancer Detectability.

Authors:  Mirinae Seo; Jung Min Chang; Sun Ah Kim; Won Hwa Kim; Ji He Lim; Su Hyun Lee; Min Sun Bae; Hye Ryoung Koo; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 3.588

Review 10.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review.

Authors:  Suneeta Mall; Sarah Lewis; Patrick Brennan; Jennie Noakes; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2017-04-04
View more
  4 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.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: integration of image modalities enhances deep learning-based breast mass classification.

Authors:  Xin Li; Genggeng Qin; Qiang He; Lei Sun; Hui Zeng; Zilong He; Weiguo Chen; Xin Zhen; Linghong Zhou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Temitope Emmanuel Komolafe; Cheng Zhang; Oluwatosin Atinuke Olagbaju; Gang Yuan; Qiang Du; Ming Li; Jian Zheng; Xiaodong Yang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.847

Review 4.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.