Literature DB >> 30495975

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

Sadia Choudhery1, Jessica Axmacher1, Amy Lynn Conners1, Jennifer Geske2, Kathy Brandt1.   

Abstract

METHODS: : All masses recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 that were sent either to diagnostic mammography or ultrasound were compared. Size, shape, margins, visibility on ultrasound, diagnostic assessment and pathology of all masses along with breast density were evaluated.
RESULTS: : 102/212 digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses were worked up with diagnostic mammography initially and 110/212 were worked up with ultrasound directly. There was no significant difference in ultrasound visibility of masses sent to diagnostic mammography first with those sent to ultrasound first (p = 0.42). 4 (4%) masses sent to mammogram first and 2 (2%) masses sent to ultrasound first were not visualized. There was a significant difference in size between masses that were visualized under ultrasound versus those that were not (p = 0.01), when masses in both groups were assessed cumulatively.
CONCLUSIONS: : 98% of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses sent to ultrasound directly were adequately assessed without diagnostic mammography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: There is potential for avoiding a diagnostic mammogram for evaluation of majority of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30495975      PMCID: PMC6540861          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180801

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  21 in total

1.  Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.

Authors:  G Rahbar; A C Sie; G C Hansen; J S Prince; M L Melany; H E Reynolds; V P Jackson; J W Sayre; L W Bassett
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  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

3.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.

Authors:  Andrea S Hong; Eric L Rosen; Mary S Soo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting.

Authors:  Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel A Craig; Tanya L Hoskins; Tara L Henrichsen; Emily C Bendel; Stephanie R Brandt; Jay Mandrekar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Davide Astengo; Francesca Cavagnetto; Raffaella Rosasco; Giuseppe Rescinito; Francesco Monetti; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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

9.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Brian M Haas; Vivek Kalra; Jaime Geisel; Madhavi Raghu; Melissa Durand; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses.

Authors:  R M Faulk; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.