Literature DB >> 31821118

Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway.

Tone Hovda1, Åsne S Holen1, Kristina Lång1, Judy Lynn Albertsen1, Hilde Bjørndal1, Siri H B Brandal1, Kristine Kleivi Sahlberg1, Per Skaane1, Pål Suhrke1, Solveig Hofvind1.   

Abstract

Background Screening that includes digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast cancers than does screening with DM alone. A decrease in interval breast cancer rates is anticipated but is not reported. Purpose To compare rates and characteristics of (a) interval breast cancer in women screened with DBT and SM versus those screened with DM alone and (b) screen-detected breast cancer at consecutive screenings with DM. Materials and Methods This prospective cohort study from BreastScreen Norway included women screened with DBT and SM (study group) or DM alone (control group) between February 2014 and December 2015 (baseline). All women, except nonattendees, women with breast cancer, and those who exceeded the upper age limit, were consecutively screened with DM after 2 years. Interval breast cancer, sensitivity, and specificity were estimated for women screened at baseline. Recall, screen-detected breast cancer, and positive predictive value were analyzed for consecutively screened women. A χ2 test, t test (P < .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a significant difference), and binomial regression model were used to analyze differences across groups. Results A total of 92 404 women who underwent baseline screening (mean age, 59 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) were evaluated; 34 641 women in the study group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DBT and SM and 57 763 women in the control group (mean age, 59 years ± 6) were screened with DM. A total of 26 474 women in the study group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) and 45 543 women in the control group (mean age, 60 years ± 5) were consecutively screened with DM. Rates of interval breast cancer were 2.0 per 1000 screened women in the study group and 1.5 per 1000 screened women in the control group (P = .12). No differences in histopathologic characteristics of interval breast cancer were observed. In the consecutive screening round, rates of screen-detected breast cancer were 3.9 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Rates of histologic grade 1 invasive cancer were 0.5 per 1000 screened women (study group) and 1.3 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001). Conclusion No differences in interval breast cancer rates or tumor characteristics were observed in women screened with DBT and SM compared with women screened with DM. Higher rates of low-grade screen-detected tumors were observed in the control group at consecutive screening. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31821118     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019191337

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


  8 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

2.  Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; R Yates Coley; Karla Kerlikowske; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Sally D Herschorn; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-03-02

3.  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

4.  Interval breast cancer rates for digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography population screening: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Solveig Hofvind; Anne L Soerensen; Kristy P Robledo; Kylie Hunter; Daniela Bernardi; Kristina Lång; Kristin Johnson; Camilla F Aglen; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2021-03-20

5.  Can artificial intelligence reduce the interval cancer rate in mammography screening?

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Solveig Hofvind; Alejandro Rodríguez-Ruiz; Ingvar Andersson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Automated Segmentation of Mass Regions in DBT Images Using a Dilated DCNN Approach.

Authors:  Jianming Ye; Weiji Yang; Jianqing Wang; Xiaomei Xu; Liuyi Li; Chun Xie; Gang Chen; Xiangcai Wang; Xiaobo Lai
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2022-02-02

7.  Image Quality Comparison between Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images and 2D Mammographic Images Using the CDMAM Test Object.

Authors:  Ioannis A Tsalafoutas; Angeliki C Epistatou; Konstantinos K Delibasis
Journal:  J Imaging       Date:  2022-08-21

Review 8.  Do we still need breast cancer screening in the era of targeted therapies and precision medicine?

Authors:  Rubina Manuela Trimboli; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Nicolò Matteo Luca Battisti; Andrea Cozzi; Veronica Magni; Moreno Zanardo; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2020-09-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.