Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23701081/ below:

Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study

Affiliations

• ¹ TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, 17030 Red Oak Dr, Houston, TX 77090, USA. slrosemd@hbimaging.onmicrosoft.com

• PMID: 23701081
• DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9672

Item in Clipboard

Stephen L Rose et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jun.

• ¹ TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, 17030 Red Oak Dr, Houston, TX 77090, USA. slrosemd@hbimaging.onmicrosoft.com

• PMID: 23701081
• DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9672

Item in Clipboard

Objective: Digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis is gaining clinical acceptance, but data are limited that show its impact in the clinical environment. We assessed the changes in performance measures, if any, after the introduction of tomosynthesis systems into our clinical practice.

Materials and methods: In this observational study, we used verified practice- and outcome-related databases to compute and compare recall rates, biopsy rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for six radiologists who interpreted screening mammography studies without (n = 13,856) and with (n = 9499) the use of tomosynthesis. Two-sided analyses (significance declared at p < 0.05) accounting for reader variability, age of participants, and whether the examination in question was a baseline were performed.

Results: For the group as a whole, the introduction and routine use of tomosynthesis resulted in significant observed changes in recall rates from 8.7% to 5.5% (p < 0.001), nonsignificant changes in biopsy rates from 15.2 to 13.5 per 1000 screenings (p = 0.59), and cancer detection rates from 4.0 to 5.4 per 1000 screenings (p = 0.18). The invasive cancer detection rate increased from 2.8 to 4.3 per 1000 screening examinations (p = 0.07). The positive predictive value for recalls increased from 4.7% to 10.1% (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The introduction of breast tomosynthesis into our practice was associated with a significant reduction in recall rates and a simultaneous increase in breast cancer detection rates.

PubMed Disclaimer

• Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

  Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Niklason LT, Hofvind S, Gur D. Skaane P, et al. Radiology. 2013 Apr;267(1):47-56. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121373. Epub 2013 Jan 7. Radiology. 2013. PMID: 23297332

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

  Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, Hayes MK, Copit DS, Carlson KL, Cink TM, Barke LD, Greer LN, Miller DP, Conant EF. Friedewald SM, et al. JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095. JAMA. 2014. PMID: 25058084

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

  McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Akhtar AL, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. McDonald ES, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Nov;205(5):1143-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14406. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015. PMID: 26496565

• Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis.

  Cohen EO, Weaver OO, Tso HH, Gerlach KE, Leung JWT. Cohen EO, et al. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Mar;58(3):470-472. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.09.016. Epub 2019 Nov 13. Am J Prev Med. 2020. PMID: 31732323 Review. No abstract available.

• Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care.

  Kopans DB. Kopans DB. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Feb;202(2):299-308. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11520. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014. PMID: 24450669 Review.

• Tomosynthesis-Guided Core Biopsy of the Breast: Why and How to Use it.

  Shin K, Teichgraeber D, Martaindale S, Whitman GJ. Shin K, et al. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2018 Jul 31;8:28. doi: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_10_18. eCollection 2018. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2018. PMID: 30147992 Free PMC article.

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

  McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Schnall M, Conant EF. McCarthy AM, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Oct 13;106(11):dju316. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju316. Print 2014 Nov. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014. PMID: 25313245 Free PMC article.

• Comparison of two-view versus single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D-mammography in breast cancer surveillance imaging.

  Hadjipanteli A, Polyviou P, Kyriakopoulos I, Genagritis M, Kotziamani N, Moniatis D, Papoutsou A, Constantinidou A. Hadjipanteli A, et al. PLoS One. 2021 Sep 29;16(9):e0256514. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256514. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34587170 Free PMC article.

• Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.

  Dibble EH, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Ward RC, Maynard AS, Mainiero MB. Dibble EH, et al. Eur Radiol. 2018 Jan;28(1):3-10. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4968-8. Epub 2017 Jul 14. Eur Radiol. 2018. PMID: 28710582

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

  McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, Conant EF. McDonald ES, et al. Radiology. 2017 Dec;285(3):778-787. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162837. Epub 2017 Jul 17. Radiology. 2017. PMID: 28715278 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3