Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography
Sarah M. Friedewald,Elizabeth A. Rafferty,Stephen L. Rose,Melissa A. Durand,Donna Plecha,Julianne S. Greenberg,Mary Katherine Hayes,Debra S. Copit,Kara L. Carlson,Thomas M. Cink,Lora D. Barke,Linda N. Greer,Dave P. Miller,Emily F. Conant +13 more
TLDR
Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate, and further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.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.read more
Citations
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
18 F-FDG-PET/CT in Breast and Gynecologic Cancer
TL;DR: This chapter details the role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis, treatment planning, evaluation of response to therapy, and assessment for recurrent disease in breast cancer as well as the most common gynecologic cancers in women.
Journal ArticleDOI
Live Mammographic Screening Interpretation Versus Offline Same-Day Screening Interpretation at a Tertiary Cancer Center.
Catherine S. Giess,Andro Reginald Luy Licaros,Dylan C. Kwait,Eren D. Yeh,Ronilda Lacson,Ramin Khorasani,Sona A. Chikarmane +6 more
TL;DR: In this article , the authors compared screening mammography performance metrics for immediate (live) interpretation versus offline interpretation at a cancer center for January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019 (live period), and September 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022 (offline period), was performed.
Book ChapterDOI
Use of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening
TL;DR: In women at greater than 20% risk for developing cancer, yearly MRI in addition to mammography is the accepted standard of care, however, MRI is expensive and not consistently available enough to perform routine screening in a larger population of women including those at intermediate risk or those with dense breasts.
Proceedings ArticleDOI
First results with a deep learning (feed-forward CNN) approach for daily quality control in digital breast tomosynthesis
TL;DR: This work proposes an alternative means of performing DQC in DBT with a 3D structured phantom that also includes a constancy test of reconstruction stability in the analysis and explores deep learning techniques to automatically track deviations from the normal or baseline operating point and compares the results to the standard metrics.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography
Debbie Saslow,Carla Boetes,Wylie Burke,Steven E. Harms,Martin O. Leach,Constance D. Lehman,Elizabeth A. Morris,Etta D. Pisano,Mitchell D. Schnall,Stephen F. Sener,Robert A. Smith,Ellen Warner,Martin J. Yaffe,Kimberly S. Andrews,Christy A. Russell +14 more
TL;DR: There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography.
Journal ArticleDOI
Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
TL;DR: Although lung cancer screening is not an alternative to smoking cessation, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in a defined population of high-risk persons can prevent a substantial number of lung cancerrelated deaths.
Journal ArticleDOI
Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening
Etta D. Pisano,Constantine Gatsonis,Edward Hendrick,Martin J. Yaffe,Janet K. Baum,Suddhasatta Acharyya,Emily F. Conant,Laurie L. Fajardo,Lawrence W. Bassett,Roberta A. Jong,Murray Rebner +10 more
TL;DR: The overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women.
Journal ArticleDOI
Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Ned Calonge,Diana B. Petitti,Thomas G. DeWitt,Allen J. Dietrich,Kimberly D. Gregory,David C. Grossman,George Isham,Michael L. LeFevre,Rosanne M. Leipzig,Lucy N. Marion,Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk,Virginia A. Moyer,Judith K. Ockene,George F. Sawaya,J. Sanford Schwartz,Timothy J Wilt,US Preventive Serv Task Force +16 more
TL;DR: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
Journal ArticleDOI
Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.
Wendie A. Berg,Jeffrey D. Blume,Jean B. Cormack,Ellen B. Mendelson,Daniel Lehrer,M. Böhm-Vélez,Etta D. Pisano,Roberta A. Jong,W. Phil Evans,Marilyn J. Morton,Mary C. Mahoney,Linda Hovanessian Larsen,Richard G. Barr,Dione M. Farria,Helga S. Marques,Karan Boparai +15 more
TL;DR: The diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammographyplus ultrasound vs Mammography alone are compared.