Literature DB >> 30777808

Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Per Skaane1, Andriy I Bandos1, Loren T Niklason1, Sofie Sebuødegård1, Bjørn H Østerås1, Randi Gullien1, David Gur1, Solveig Hofvind1.   

Abstract

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30777808     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182394

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


  13 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

3.  Toward Using Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Models for Guiding Screening Decisions.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 11.816

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.  Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  First proof-of-concept evaluation of the FUSION-X-US-II prototype for the performance of automated breast ultrasound in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Benedikt Schaefgen; Marija Juskic; Madeleine Hertel; Richard G Barr; Marcus Radicke; Anne Stieber; André Hennigs; Fabian Riedel; Christof Sohn; Joerg Heil; Michael Golatta
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 2.344

7.  Average absorbed breast dose (2ABD): an easy radiation dose index for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Antonio C Traino; Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele M Tucciariello; Chiara Sottocornola; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria E Fantacci
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2020-07-07

8.  Mass Detection and Segmentation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Using 3D-Mask Region-Based Convolutional Neural Network: A Comparative Analysis.

Authors:  Ming Fan; Huizhong Zheng; Shuo Zheng; Chao You; Yajia Gu; Xin Gao; Weijun Peng; Lihua Li
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2020-11-11

9.  The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Xuan-Anh Phi; Marcel J W Greuter; Alicja M Daszczuk; Talitha L Feenstra; Ruud M Pijnappel; Karin M Vermeulen; Nico Buls; Nehmat Houssami; Wenli Lu; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Classification of microcalcification clusters in digital breast tomosynthesis using ensemble convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Bingbing Xiao; Haotian Sun; You Meng; Yunsong Peng; Xiaodong Yang; Shuangqing Chen; Zhuangzhi Yan; Jian Zheng
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.