Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a populationbased screening program

Radiology

Volumn 267, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 47-56

  Skaane, Per ^a   Bandos, Andriy I ^b   Gullien, Randi ^a   Eben, Ellen B ^a   Ekseth, Ulrika ^d   Haakenaasen, Unni ^a   Izadi, Mina ^a   Jebsen, Ingvild N ^a   Jahr, Gunnar ^a   Krager, Mona ^a   Niklason, Loren T ^e   Hofvind, Solveig ^f   Gur, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Curato Roentgen Institute   (Norway)

^e HOLOGIC INC   (United States)

^f Institute of Population based Cancer Research   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASS SCREENING; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOSYNTHESIS;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NORWAY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REGISTRIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84874960822     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121373     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Paap E, Holland R, den Heeten GJ, et al. A remarkable reduction of breast cancer deaths in screened versus unscreened women: a case-referent study. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21(10):1569-1573.
2. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen THH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260(3):658-663.
3. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716-726, W-236.
4. Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198(3):723-728.
5. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
6. Houssami N, Ciatto S. The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. Prev Med 2011;53(3):123-126.
7. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O'Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology 2011;258(1):106-118.
8. Sickles EA. The use of breast imaging to screen women at high risk for cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):859-878.
9. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: stateof- the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011;18(10):1298-1310.
10. Diekmann F, Bick U. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011;32(4):281- 287.
11. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5): 917-929.
12. Rafferty EA. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Breast Dis 2006;9(3):111-118.
13. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205(2):399-406.
14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Devices. Selenia Dimensions 3D System - P080003. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently- ApprovedDevices/ucm246400.htm. Published March 9, 2011.
15. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;133(1):267-271.
16. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20(7):1545-1553.
17. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
18. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):616-623.
19. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139(1-3): 113-117.
20. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(1):16- 24.
21. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution x-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012;262(3):788-796.
22. 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(12):2817-2825.
23. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Populationbased mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I Study. Radiology 2003;229(3):877-884.
24. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program - the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004;232(1):197-204.
25. Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjørndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53(5):524-529.
26. Starr SJ, Metz CE, Lusted LB, Goodenough DJ. Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. Radiology 1975;116(3): 533-538.
27. Dachman AH, Obuchowski NA, Hoffmeister JW, et al. Effect of computer-aided detection for CT colonography in a multireader, multicase trial. Radiology 2010;256(3): 827-835.
28. Guittet L, Bouvier V, Mariotte N, et al. Comparison of a guaiac and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test for the detection of colonic lesions according to lesion type and location. Br J Cancer 2009;100(8): 1230-1235.
29. Gutman S, Kessler LG. The US Food and Drug Administration perspective on cancer biomarker development. Nat Rev Cancer 2006;6(7):565-571.
30. Schatzkin A, Connor RJ, Taylor PR, Bunnag B. Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees: example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1987;125(4): 672-678.
31. Pepe MS, Alonzo TA. Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives. Biostatistics 2001;2(3):249-260.
32. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
33. Pocock SJ. Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 1977;64(2):191-199.
34. Kalager M, Adami HO, Bretthauer M, Tamimi RM. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med 2012;156(7):491-499.
35. Kopans DB, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammographic screening and "overdiagnosis". Radiology 2011;260(3):616-620.
36. de Gelder R, Heijnsdijk EA, van Ravesteyn NT, Fracheboud J, Draisma G, de Koning HJ. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33(1):111-121.
37. 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(4):450-455.
38. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2012;19(2):166-171.