Gunnar Jahr

Bio: Gunnar Jahr is an academic researcher from University of Oslo. The author has contributed to research in topics: Tomosynthesis & Mammography. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 4 publications receiving 1129 citations. Previous affiliations of Gunnar Jahr include Oslo University Hospital.

Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program

Abstract: We found a significant increase in cancer detection rates, particularly for invasive cancers, and a simultaneous decrease in false-positive rates with use of mammography plus tomosynthesis compared with mammography alone.

Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration

Abstract: To compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening. A prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A—2D; Arm B—2D + CAD; Arm C—2D + 3D; Arm D—synthesised 2D + 3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A + B) and 2D + 3D (Arm C + D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P < 0.05). Pre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D + 3D, respectively (P < 0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P = 0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P < 0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P = 0.97). Using 2D + 3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P < 0.001). Double reading of 2D + 3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. • Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial. • Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations. • Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.

Abstract: BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising new technology. Some experimental clinical studies have shown positive results, but the future role and indications of this new technique, whether in a screening or clinical setting, need to be evaluated.PurposeTo compare digital mammography and DBT in a side-by-side feature analysis for cancer conspicuity, and to assess whether there is a potential additional value of DBT to standard state-of-the-art conventional imaging work-up with respect to detection of additional malignancies.Material and MethodsThe study had ethics committee approval. A total of 129 women underwent 2D digital mammography including supplementary cone-down and magnification views and breast ultrasonography if indicated, as well as digital breast tomosynthesis. The indication for conventional imaging in the clinical setting included a palpable lump in 30 (23%), abnormal mammographic screening findings in 54 (42%), and surveillance in 45 (35%) of the women. The women were exam...

Mammography screening using independent double reading with consensus: is there a potential benefit for computer-aided detection?

Abstract: BackgroundDouble reading improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. Single reading with computer-aided detection (CAD) has been considered to be an alternative to double reading. Little is known about the potential benefit of CAD in breast cancer screening with double reading.PurposeTo compare prospective independent double reading of screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital (FFDM) mammography in population-based screening with retrospective standalone CAD performance on the baseline mammograms of the screen-detected cancers and subsequent cancers diagnosed during the follow-up period.Material and MethodsThe study had ethics committee approval. A 5-point rating scale for probability of cancer was used for 23,923 (SFM = 16,983; FFDM = 6940) screening mammograms. Of 208 evaluable cancers, 104 were screen-detected and 104 were subsequent (44 interval and 60 next screening round) cancers. Baseline mammograms of subsequent cancers were retrospectively classified in consensus without informati...

Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Abstract: This guideline from the USPSTF is based on current evidence on mammography, digital breast tomography, and supplemental screening for breast cancer. The recommendations apply to asymptomatic women ...

Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program

Abstract: We found a significant increase in cancer detection rates, particularly for invasive cancers, and a simultaneous decrease in false-positive rates with use of mammography plus tomosynthesis compared with mammography alone.

Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.

Abstract: Summary Background Digital breast tomosynthesis with 3D images might overcome some of the limitations of conventional 2D mammography for detection of breast cancer. We investigated the effect of integrated 2D and 3D mammography in population breast-cancer screening. Methods Screening with Tomosynthesis OR standard Mammography (STORM) was a prospective comparative study. We recruited asymptomatic women aged 48 years or older who attended population-based breast-cancer screening through the Trento and Verona screening services (Italy) from August, 2011, to June, 2012. We did screen-reading in two sequential phases—2D only and integrated 2D and 3D mammography—yielding paired data for each screen. Standard double-reading by breast radiologists determined whether to recall the participant based on positive mammography at either screen read. Outcomes were measured from final assessment or excision histology. Primary outcome measures were the number of detected cancers, the number of detected cancers per 1000 screens, the number and proportion of false positive recalls, and incremental cancer detection attributable to integrated 2D and 3D mammography. We compared paired binary data with McNemar's test. Findings 7292 women were screened (median age 58 years [IQR 54–63]). We detected 59 breast cancers (including 52 invasive cancers) in 57 women. Both 2D and integrated 2D and 3D screening detected 39 cancers. We detected 20 cancers with integrated 2D and 3D only versus none with 2D screening only (p Interpretation Integrated 2D and 3D mammography improves breast-cancer detection and has the potential to reduce false positive recalls. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare integrated 2D and 3D mammography with 2D mammography for breast cancer screening. Funding National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Hologic, USA; Technologic, Italy.

Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography

Abstract: mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.

Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Importance Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. Objective To systematically synthesize available evidence on the association of mammographic screening and clinical breast examination (CBE) at different ages and intervals with breast cancer mortality, overdiagnosis, false-positive biopsy findings, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy. Evidence Review We searched PubMed (to March 6, 2014), CINAHL (to September 10, 2013), and PsycINFO (to September 10, 2013) for systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (with no limit to publication date), and observational and modeling studies published after January 1, 2000, as well as systematic reviews of all study designs. Included studies (7 reviews, 10 RCTs, 72 observational, 1 modeling) provided evidence on the association between screening with mammography, CBE, or both and prespecified critical outcomes among women at average risk of breast cancer (no known genetic susceptibility, family history, previous breast neoplasia, or chest irradiation). We used summary estimates from existing reviews, supplemented by qualitative synthesis of studies not included in those reviews. Findings Across all ages of women at average risk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 years of follow-up were similar for 3 meta-analyses of clinical trials (UK Independent Panel: relative risk [RR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.89]; Canadian Task Force: RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.94]; Cochrane: RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]); were greater in a meta-analysis of cohort studies (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]); and were comparable in a modeling study (CISNET; median RR equivalent among 7 models, 0.85 [range, 0.77-0.93]). Uncertainty remains about the magnitude of associated mortality reduction in the entire US population, among women 40 to 49 years, and with annual screening compared with biennial screening. There is uncertainty about the magnitude of overdiagnosis associated with different screening strategies, attributable in part to lack of consensus on methods of estimation and the importance of ductal carcinoma in situ in overdiagnosis. For women with a first mammography screening at age 40 years, estimated 10-year cumulative risk of a false-positive biopsy result was higher (7.0% [95% CI, 6.1%-7.8%]) for annual compared with biennial (4.8% [95% CI, 4.4%-5.2%]) screening. Although 10-year probabilities of false-positive biopsy results were similar for women beginning screening at age 50 years, indirect estimates of lifetime probability of false-positive results were lower. Evidence for the relationship between screening and life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy was low in quality. There was no direct evidence for any additional mortality benefit associated with the addition of CBE to mammography, but observational evidence from the United States and Canada suggested an increase in false-positive findings compared with mammography alone, with both studies finding an estimated 55 additional false-positive findings per extra breast cancer detected with the addition of CBE. Conclusions and Relevance For women of all ages at average risk, screening was associated with a reduction in breast cancer mortality of approximately 20%, although there was uncertainty about quantitative estimates of outcomes for different breast cancer screening strategies in the United States. These findings and the related uncertainty should be considered when making recommendations based on judgments about the balance of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.