Literature DB >> 30938625

Digital 2D versus Tomosynthesis Screening Mammography among Women Aged 65 and Older in the United States.

Manisha Bahl1, Niveditha Pinnamaneni1, Sarah Mercaldo1, Anne Marie McCarthy1, Constance D Lehman1.   

Abstract

Background Although breast cancer incidence and mortality rates increase with advancing age, there are limited data on the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women and on the performance of two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in older women. Purpose To compare performance metrics of DM and DBT among women aged 65 years and older. Materials and Methods For this retrospective study, consecutive screening mammograms in patients aged 65 years and older from March 2008 to February 2011 (DM group) and from January 2013 to December 2015 (DBT group) were reviewed. Cancer detection rate, abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to compare performance metrics in the DM versus DBT groups. Results The DM group had 15 019 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 72.7 years ± 6.3), and the DBT group had 20 646 women (mean age, 72.1 years ± 5.9). After adjusting for multiple variables, there was no difference in cancer detection rate between the DM and DBT groups (6.9 vs 8.2 per 1000 examinations; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; P = .23). Compared with the DM group, the DBT group had a lower abnormal interpretation rate (5.7% vs 5.8%; AOR, 0.88; P < .001), higher positive predictive value 1 (14.5% vs 11.9%; AOR, 1.26; P = .03), and higher specificity (95.1% vs 94.8%; AOR, 1.18; P < .001). The DBT group had a higher proportion of invasive cancers relative to in situ cancers (81.1% vs 74.4%; P = .06) and fewer node-positive cancers (10.2% vs 16.6%; P = .054) than did the DM group. Conclusion In women aged 65 years and older, integration of digital breast tomosynthesis led to improved performance metrics, with a lower abnormal interpretation rate, higher positive predictive value 1, and higher specificity. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Philpotts and Durand in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30938625     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181637

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


  3 in total

1.  Mammography use and breast cancer incidence among older U.S. women.

Authors:  Sara D Turbow; Mary C White; Erica S Breslau; Susan A Sabatino
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  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 3.  Cancer Prevention and Screening for Older Adults: Part 2. Interventions to Prevent and Screen for Breast, Prostate, Cervical, Ovarian, and Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Patrick P Coll; Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki; Benjamin T Ristau; Armin Shahrokni; Alexander Koshy; Olga T Filippova; Imran Ali
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 7.538

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.