Literature DB >> 30806595

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve.

Diana L Miglioretti1, Linn Abraham1, Christoph I Lee1, Diana S M Buist1, Sally D Herschorn1, Brian L Sprague1, Louise M Henderson1, Anna N A Tosteson1, Karla Kerlikowske1.   

Abstract

Background There is growing evidence that digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) results in lower recall rates and higher cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography. However, whether DBT interpretative performance changes with experience (learning curve effect) is unknown. Purpose To evaluate screening DBT performance by cumulative DBT volume within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption. Materials and Methods This prospective study included 106 126 DBT and 221 248 DM examinations in 271 362 women (mean age, 57.5 years) from 2010 to 2017 that were interpreted by 104 radiologists from 53 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate within-radiologist effects of increasing cumulative DBT volume on recall and cancer detection rates relative to DM and was adjusted for examination-level characteristics. Changes were also evaluated by subspecialty and breast density. Results Before DBT adoption, DM recall rate was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.5%, 11.4%) and cancer detection rate was 4.0 per 1000 screenings (95% CI: 3.6 per 1000 screenings, 4.5 per 1000 screenings); after DBT adoption, DBT recall rate was lower (9.4%; 95% CI: 8.2%, 10.6%; P = .02) and cancer detection rate was similar (4.6 per 1000 screenings; 95% CI: 4.0 per 1000 screenings, 5.2 per 1000 screenings; P = .12). Relative to DM, DBT recall rate decreased for a cumulative DBT volume of fewer than 400 studies (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.89) and remained lower as volume increased (400-799 studies, OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.85]; 800-1199 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.87]; 1200-1599 studies, OR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73, 0.84]; 1600-2000 studies, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.88]; P < .001). Improvements were sustained for breast imaging subspecialists (OR range, 0.67-0.85; P < .02) and readers who were not breast imaging specialists (OR range, 0.80-0.85; P < .001). Recall rates decreased more in women with nondense breasts (OR range, 0.68-0.76; P < .001) than in those with dense breasts (OR range, 0.86-0.90; P ≤ .05; P interaction < .001). Cancer detection rates for DM and DBT were similar, regardless of DBT volume (P ≥ .10). Conclusion Early performance improvements after digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption were sustained regardless of DBT volume, radiologist subspecialty, or breast density. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Hooley in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30806595      PMCID: PMC6438358          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182305

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


  22 in total

1.  Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.

Authors:  Christiane M Hakim; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy E Kelly; Dilip D Shinde; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Despina Kontos; Marie Synnestvedt; Kay See Tan; Daniel F Heitjan; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rafferty; Melissa A Durand; Emily F Conant; Debra Somers Copit; Sarah M Friedewald; Donna M Plecha; Dave P Miller
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Brave New World of Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

5.  Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew Oustimov; Susan P Weinstein; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 31.777

7.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall.

Authors:  M Luke Marinovich; Kylie E Hunter; Petra Macaskill; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Rebecca Yates Coley; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Sally Herschorn; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth Rauscher; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-07-01

5.  Comparative Access to and Use of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening by Women's Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Ellen S O'Meara; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Roberta diFlorio-Alexander; Celia Kaplan; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-02-01

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.

Authors:  Rashmi Sudhir; Kamala Sannapareddy; Alekya Potlapalli; Pooja Boggaram Krishnamurthy; Suryakala Buddha; Veeraiah Koppula
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Trade-Offs Between Harms and Benefits of Different Breast Cancer Screening Intervals Among Low-Risk Women.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Clyde B Schechter; John M Hampton; Oguzhan Alagoz; Jeroen J van den Broek; Karla Kerlikowske; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Harry J de Koning; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-08-02       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Thao-Quyen H Ho; Michael C S Bissell; Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-03-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.