Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 200, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 291-298

  Brandt, Kathleen R ^a   Craig, Daniel A ^a   Hoskins, Tanya L ^a   Henrichsen, Tara L ^a   Bendel, Emily C ^a   Brandt, Stephanie R ^a   Mandrekar, Jay ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

3D mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Tomosynthesis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84873591639     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8881     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Berkowitz JE, Gatewood OM, Gayler BW. Equivocal mammographic findings: evaluation with spot compression. Radiology 1989; 171:369-371
2. Sickles EA. Combining spot-compression and other special views to maximize mammographic information. (letter) Radiology 1989; 173:571
3. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR 2009; 193:586-591
4. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR 2007; 189:616-623
5. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR 2010; 195:528; [web] W172-W176
6. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 2012; 262:61-68
7. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, et al. Oneto- one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:539-544
8. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:1545-1553
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. P080003 Hologic Selenia Dimensions 3D System: summary of safety and effectiveness data (§814.44). Published 2011. www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory-Committees/ CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM226710.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2012
10. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008; 18:2817-2825
11. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, et al. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high resolution x-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012; 262:788-796
12. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, et al. Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 2010; 17:450-455
13. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical practice guideline no. 13. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 1994: AHCPR publication no. 95-0632