Digital breast tomosynthesis and the challenges of implementing an emerging breast cancer screening technology into clinical practice

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 913-917

  Lee, Christoph I ^a,b,c   Lehman, Constance D ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

Author keywords

adjunct screening; Digital breast tomosynthesis; technology adoption

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CURRENT PROCEDURAL TERMINOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MEDICARE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT ADVOCACY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RADIATION HAZARD; REIMBURSEMENT;

ADJUNCT SCREENING; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

ABSORPTIOMETRY, PHOTON; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DISCLOSURE; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT ACCESS TO RECORDS; PHYSICIAN'S ROLE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84889257564     PISSN: 15461440     EISSN: 1558349X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Advances in breast imaging. Although mammography remains standard for breast cancer screening, several newer technologies are helping to fine-tune diagnosis Harv Womens Health Watch 17 2010 1 3
2. N.T. van Ravesteyn, D.L. Miglioretti, and N.K. Stout Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk Ann Intern Med 156 2012 609 617
3. E.D. Pisano, C. Gatsonis, and E. Hendrick Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening N Engl J Med 353 2005 1773 1783
4. M.G. Wallis, E. Moa, F. Zanca, K. Leifland, and M. Danielsson Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study Radiology 262 2012 788 796
5. P. Skaane, R. Gullien, H. Bjorndal, E.B. Eben, U. Ekseth, and U. Haakenaasen Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting Acta Radiol 53 2012 524 529
6. D. Gur, G.S. Abrams, and D.M. Chough Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study AJR Am J Roentgenol 193 2009 586 591
7. M.J. Michell, A. Iqbal, and R.K. Wasan A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis Clin Radiol 67 2012 976 981
8. D. Bernardi, S. Ciatto, and M. Pellegrini Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening Breast Cancer Res Treat 133 2012 267 271
9. T. Svahn, I. Andersson, and D. Chakraborty 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 139 2010 113 117
10. P. Skaane, A.I. Bandos, and R. Gullien Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program Radiology 267 2013 47 56
11. S. Ciatto, N. Houssami, and D. Bernardi Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study Lancet Oncol 14 2013 583 589
12. A.N. Tosteson, N.K. Stout, and D.G. Fryback Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening Ann Intern Med 148 2008 1 10
13. L.S. Gold, G. Klein, L. Carr, L. Kessler, and S.D. Sullivan The emergence of diagnostic imaging technologies in breast cancer: discovery, regulatory approval, reimbursement, and adoption in clinical guidelines Cancer Imaging 12 2012 13 24
14. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000. Ruling No. 01-01. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Rulings/downloads/ cmsr0101.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2013.
15. L.J. Warren Burhenne, S.A. Wood, and C.J. D'Orsi Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography Radiology 215 2000 554 562
16. R.L. Birdwell, D.M. Ikeda, K.F. O'Shaughnessy, and E.A. Sickles Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection Radiology 219 2001 192 202
17. J.J. Fenton, S.H. Taplin, and P.A. Carney Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography N Engl J Med 356 2007 1399 1409
18. M. Noble, W. Bruening, S. Uhl, and K. Schoelles Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis Arch Gynecol Obstet 279 2009 881 890
19. P. Taylor, and H.W. Potts Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate Eur J Cancer 44 2008 798 807
20. J.J. Fenton, S.B. Foote, P. Green, and L.M. Baldwin Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage Arch Intern Med 170 2010 987 989
21. Szabo L. New 3-D mammograms have benefits, risks. USA Today. October 9, 2012. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/09/3d- mammogram-tomosynthesis/1615719/. Accessed August 19, 2013.
22. Are You Dense Advocacy. D.E.N.S.E. state efforts. Available at: http://Areyoudenseadvocacy.org/dense/. Accessed June 16, 2013.
23. C.I. Lee, L.W. Bassett, and C.D. Lehman Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research Radiology 264 2012 632 636
24. W.A. Berg, J.D. Blume, and J.B. Cormack Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer JAMA 299 2008 2151 2163
25. K.M. Kelly, J. Dean, S.J. Lee, and W.S. Comulada Breast cancer detection: radiologists' performance using mammography with and without automated whole-breast ultrasound Eur Radiol 20 2010 2557 2564
26. S.P. Poplack, T.D. Tosteson, C.A. Kogel, and H.M. Nagy Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography AJR Am J Roentgenol 189 2007 616 623
27. S.S. Feng, and I. Sechopoulos Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization Radiology 263 2012 35 42
28. D. Gur, M.L. Zuley, and M.I. Anello Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study Acad Radiol 19 2012 166 171
29. W.F. Good, G.S. Abrams, and V.J. Catullo Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 2008 865 869
30. M.L. Zuley, A.I. Bandos, and G.S. Abrams Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations Acad Radiol 17 2010 450 455
31. A. Tagliafico, G. Tagliafico, and D. Astengo Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software Eur Radiol 22 2012 1265 1270
32. A. Tagliafico, D. Astengo, and F. Cavagnetto One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis Eur Radiol 22 2012 539 544
33. M. Noroozian, L. Hadjiiski, and S. Rahnama-Moghadam Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization Radiology 262 2012 61 68
34. S.D. Pearson, A.B. Knudsen, R.W. Scherer, J. Weissberg, and G.S. Gazelle Assessing the comparative effectiveness of a diagnostic technology: CT colonography Health Aff (Millwood) 27 2008 1503 1514
35. P.V. Pandharipande, and G.S. Gazelle Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology Radiology 253 2009 600 605
36. S. Tunis, and D. Whicher The National Oncologic PET Registry: lessons learned for coverage with evidence development J Am Coll Radiol 6 2009 360 365