Literature DB >> 31415739

Survey Results Regarding Uptake and Impact of Synthetic Digital Mammography With Tomosynthesis in the Screening Setting.

Samantha P Zuckerman1, Brian L Sprague2, Donald L Weaver2, Sally D Herschorn2, Emily F Conant3.   

Abstract

Synthesized digital mammography (SM) was developed to replace digital mammography (DM) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) imaging to reduce radiation dose. This survey assessed utilization and attitudes regarding SM in DBT screening. The study was institutional review board exempt. An online survey was sent to members of the Society of Breast Imaging in June 2018. Questions included practice information, utilization of DBT and SM, perception of change in recall rates (RRs) and cancer detection rates (CDRs) with SM-DBT versus DM-DBT, and attitudes regarding SM versus DM in DBT screening. χ2 Tests were used to compare response frequencies across groups. In all, 312 of 2,600 Society of Breast Imaging members responded to the survey (12%). Of respondents, 96% reported DBT capability, and 83% reported SM capability. Of those without SM, the most cited reasons were cost or administration and image quality concerns (both 32%). In addition, 40% reported combined SM and DM use in DBT screens, and 52% reported SM use without DM in the majority of DBT screens. The overall satisfaction with SM was 3.4 of 5 (1-5 scale). Most cited SM advantages were decreased dose (85%) and increased lesion conspicuity (27%). The most cited SM disadvantages were calcification characterization (61%) and decreased image quality (31%). Most respondents were unsure if CDRs changed (44%) and RR changed (30%) with few reporting adverse outcomes (6% RR increase, 1% CDR decrease). Most radiologists screening with DBT have SM, but only one-half have replaced DM with SM. Despite few reported adverse screening outcomes with SM-DBT, radiologists have concerns about image quality, specifically calcification characterization.
Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; breast cancer screening; digital breast tomosynthesis; synthetic mammography

Year:  2019        PMID: 31415739      PMCID: PMC6952532          DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.07.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  24 in total

1.  Business of radiology 101: the state of radiology business practice and health care policy curricula at US radiology residency programs.

Authors:  Jonathan R Medverd; Demetrius L Dicks; Joseph Tang; Jennifer R Kohr; Peter G Stratil; Christina M Cinelli; Eric J Monroe
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.532

2.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial).

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Advances in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Regina J Hooley; Melissa A Durand; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  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

6.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM?

Authors:  Jeffrey S Nelson; Jered R Wells; Jay A Baker; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.

Authors:  Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Nehmat Houssami; Mirella Fasciano; Alberto Tagliafico; Davide Bosco; Cristina Casella; Camilla Bogetti; Laura Bergamasco; Paolo Fonio; Giovanni Gandini
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  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

10.  Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.

Authors:  M Lee Spangler; Margarita L Zuley; Jules H Sumkin; Gordan Abrams; Marie A Ganott; Christiane Hakim; Ronald Perrin; Denise M Chough; Ratan Shah; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  3 in total

1.  Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection enhances synthesized mammograms: comparison with original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images in an experimental setting.

Authors:  Takayoshi Uematsu; Kazuaki Nakashima; Taiyo Leopoldo Harada; Hatsuko Nasu; Tatsuya Igarashi
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 3.307

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.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.