Literature DB >> 29869961

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.

Pierpaolo Pattacini1, Andrea Nitrosi1, Paolo Giorgi Rossi1, Valentina Iotti1, Vladimiro Ginocchi1, Sara Ravaioli1, Rita Vacondio1, Luca Braglia1, Silvio Cavuto1, Cinzia Campari1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare digital mammography (DM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus DM alone for breast cancer screening in the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis trial, a two-arm test-and-treat randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods For this trial, eligible women (45-70 years old) who previously participated in the Reggio Emilia screening program were invited for mammography. Consenting women were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo DBT+DM or DM (both of which involved two projections and double reading). Women were treated according to the decision at DBT+DM. Sensitivity, recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) at baseline were determined; the ratios of these rates for DBT+DM relative to DM alone were determined. Results From March 2014 to March 2016, 9777 women were recruited to the DM+DBT arm of the study, and 9783 women were recruited to the DM arm (mean age, 56.2 vs 56.3 years). Recall was 3.5% in both arms; detection was 4.5 per 1000 (44 of 9783) and 8.6 per 1000 (83 of 9777), respectively (+89%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 31, 72). PPV of the recall was 13.0% and 24.1%, respectively (P = .0002); 72 of 80 cancers found in the DBT+DM arm and with complete DBT imaging were positive at least at one DBT-alone reading. The greater detection rate for DM+DBT was stronger for ductal carcinoma in situ (+180%, 95% CI: 1, 665); it was notable for small and medium invasive cancers, but not for large ones (+94 [95% CI: 6, 254]; +122 [95% CI: 18, 316]; -12 [95% CI: -68, 141]; for invasive cancers < 10 mm, 10-19 mm, and ≥ 20 mm, respectively). Conclusion DBT+DM depicts 90% more cancers in a population previously screened with DM, with similar recall rates. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29869961     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018172119

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


  17 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.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

Review 3.  Deep learning in breast radiology: current progress and future directions.

Authors:  William C Ou; Dogan Polat; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography alone for Japanese women.

Authors:  Kanako Ban; Hiroko Tsunoda; Seiko Togashi; Yuko Kawaguchi; Takanobu Sato; Yoko Takahashi; Yoshitaka Nagatsuka
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.239

5.  Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.

Authors:  Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele Maria Tucciariello; Antonio Traino; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria Evelina Fantacci
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2020-11-23

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.  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

8.  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

9.  Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old.

Authors:  Ilana B Richman; Jessica B Long; Jessica R Hoag; Akhil Upneja; Regina Hooley; Xiao Xu; Natalia Kunst; Jenerius A Aminawung; Kelly A Kyanko; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-11-02       Impact factor: 11.816

10.  Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation.

Authors:  Daniela Bernardi; Maria A Gentilini; Martina De Nisi; Marco Pellegrini; Carmine Fantò; Marvi Valentini; Vincenzo Sabatino; Andrea Luparia; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 4.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.