Literature DB >> 33048032

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

Samantha P Zuckerman1, Brian L Sprague1, Donald L Weaver1, Sally D Herschorn1, Emily F Conant1.   

Abstract

BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; P < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate (P = .52 and P = .98, respectively), positive predictive value (P = .78), or sensitivity (P = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33048032      PMCID: PMC7706877          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020200240

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


  35 in total

1.  BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Diana S M Buist; Sally D Herschorn; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 11.105

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

4.  Detection Rates for Benign and Malignant Diagnoses on Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Statewide Mammography Registry Study.

Authors:  Mayo H Fujii; Sally D Herschorn; Michelle Sowden; Elise L Hotaling; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-01-23       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.  Performance of 2D Synthetic Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in the Detection of Microcalcifications at Screening.

Authors:  Katerina Dodelzon; Katherine Simon; Eda Dou; Allison D Levy; Aya Y Michaels; Gulce Askin; Janine T Katzen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-04-07       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  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

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

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-08-12       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  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

10.  Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Amana L Akhtar; Marie B Synnestvedt; Mitchell Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  2 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.  Multimodal Imaging of Target Detection Algorithm under Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Early Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Meiping Jiang; Sanlin Lei; Junhui Zhang; Liqiong Hou; Meixiang Zhang; Yingchun Luo
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 2.682

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.