Literature DB >> 30057195

Comparison of Resource Utilization and Clinical Outcomes Following Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Findings From a Learning Health System.

Nila H Alsheik1, Firas Dabbous2, Scott K Pohlman3, Kathleen M Troeger3, Richard E Gliklich4, Gregory M Donadio4, Zhaohui Su4, Vandana Menon4, Emily F Conant5.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes associated with breast cancer screening with digital mammography (DM) alone versus in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in a large representative cohort.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 325,729 screening mammograms from 247,431 women were analyzed, across two healthcare systems, from June 2015 to September 2017. Patient level demographic, calculated risk levels, and clinical outcomes were extracted from radiology information system and electronic medical records. Multivariable regression modeling adjusting for institution, age, breast density, and first exam was conducted to compare patient characteristics, recall rates, time to biopsy and final diagnosis, clinical outcomes, and diagnostic performance. Participating institutions and the Coordinating Center received Institutional Review Board approval for a waiver of consent to collect and link data and perform analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 194,437 (59.7%) screens were DBT versus 131,292 (40.3%) with DM. Women with dense breasts and higher calculated risk were more likely to be screened with DBT. Recall rates were lower for DBT overall (8.83% DBT vs 10.98% DM, adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.85, 0.83-0.87) and across all age groups, races, and breast densities, and at facilities that used predominantly DBT (8.05%) versus predominantly DM (11.22%), or a combination (10.73%). The most common diagnostic pathway after recall was mammography and ultrasound. Women recalled from DBT were more likely to proceed directly to ultrasound. The median time to biopsy (18 vs 22 days) and final diagnosis (10 vs 13 days) was shorter for DBT. The adjusted cancer rate, cancer detection rate, and specificity were higher for DBT.
CONCLUSION: DBT demonstrated a more efficient screening pathway and improved quality measures with lower recall rates in all patient types, reduced diagnostic mammography and shorter time to biopsy and final diagnosis.
Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer detection; Recall; Tomosynthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30057195     DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.05.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  8 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.  A collection input based support tensor machine for lesion malignancy classification in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Benjuan Yang; Yingjiang Wu; Zhiguo Zhou; Shulong Li; Genggeng Qin; Liyuan Chen; Jing Wang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-12-05       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Yu-Ru Su; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Nila Alsheik; Michael C S Bissell; Ellen S O'Meara; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 157.335

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  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

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.