Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: A survey of physician members of the society of breast imaging

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 594-599

  Hardesty, Lara A ^a   Kreidler, Sarah M ^b   Glueck, Deborah H ^b  

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

^b Food Science and Human Nutrition   (United States)

Author keywords

breast cancer; Digital breast tomosynthesis; mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONSENSUS; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL IMAGING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; MEDICAL FEE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIVATE PRACTICE; RADIOLOGIST; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; HEALTH SURVEY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT SELECTION; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT SELECTION; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; RADIOLOGY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 84902280804     PISSN: 15461440     EISSN: 1558349X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.11.025     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. 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 Am J Roentgenol 189 2007 616 623
2. J.M. Park, E.A. Franken, M. Garg, L.L. Fajardo, and L.T. Niklason Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications Radiographics 27 suppl 1 2007 S231 S240
3. W.F. Good, G.S. Abrams, and V.J. Catullo et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study AJR Am J Roentgenol 190 2008 865 869
4. D. Gur, G.S. Abrams, and D.M. Chough et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study Am J Roentgenol 193 2009 586 591
5. G. Gennaro, A. Toledano, and C. di Maggio et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study Eur Radiol 20 2010 1545 1553
6. D. Förnvik, S. Zackrisson, and O. Ljungberg et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 1987 51 2010 240 247
7. D. Gur, A.I. Bandos, and H.E. Rockette et al. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm Am J Roentgenol 196 2011 737 741
8. M.L. Spangler, M.L. Zuley, and J.H. Sumkin et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison AJR Am J Roentgenol 196 2011 320 324
9. M. Noroozian, L. Hadjiiski, and S. Rahnama-Moghadam et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization Radiology 1 262 2012 61 68
10. A. Tagliafico, D. Astengo, and F. Cavagnetto et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis Eur Radiol 1 22 2012 539 544
11. 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
12. P. Skaane, R. Gullien, and H. Bjørndal et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting Acta Radiol 53 2012 524 529
13. F. Thibault, C. Dromain, and C. Breucq et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study Eur Radiol 23 2013 2441 2449
14. M.L. Zuley, A.I. Bandos, and M.A. Ganott et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions Radiology 266 2013 89 95
15. M. Alakhras, R. Bourne, M. Rickard, K.H. Ng, M. Pietrzyk, and P.C. Brennan Digital tomosynthesis: A new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol 68 2013 e225 e236
16. P. Skaane, A.I. Bandos, and R. Gullien et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program Radiology 267 2013 47 56
17. E.A. Rafferty, J.M. Park, and L.E. Philpotts et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial Radiology 266 2013 104 113
18. S. Ciatto, N. Houssami, and D. Bernardi et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study Lancet Oncol 14 2013 583 589
19. K.R. Brandt, D.A. Craig, and T.L. Hoskins et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting Am J Roentgenol 200 2013 291 298
20. B.M. Haas, V. Kalra, J. Geisel, M. Raghu, M. Durand, and L.E. Philpotts Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening Radiology 269 2013 694 700
21. S.L. Rose, A.L. Tidwell, L.J. Bujnoch, A.C. Kushwaha, A.S. Nordmann, and R. Sexton Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study AJR Am J Roentgenol 200 2013 1401 1408
22. L.T. Niklason, B.T. Christian, and L.E. Niklason et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging Radiology 205 1997 399 406
23. L.T. Niklason, D.B. Kopans, and L.M. Hamberg Digital breast imaging: tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography Breast Dis 10 1998 151 164
24. Breast Imaging and Intervention Guidelines - American College of Radiology [Internet]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/ Standards-Guidelines/Practice-Guidelines-by-Modality/Breast-Imaging. Accessed Oct 1, 2013.
25. SurveyMonkey. SurveyMonkey: Free online survey software & questionnaire tool [Internet]. Available from: http://www.surveymonkey.com/. Accessed August 14, 2013.
26. Society of Breast Imaging: About SBI [Internet]. Available from: http://www.sbi-online.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=9#Mission. Accessed September 5, 2013.
27. R.A. Fisher On the interpretation of χ2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P J R Stat Soc 85 1 1922 87 94
28. Jr DWH, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied Logistic Regression (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). 3 edition. Wiley; 2013.
29. Team RC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2013. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
30. Inc SI. SAS 9.3 Software, Version 9.3 [Internet]. Cary, NC; 2012. Available from: http://www.sas.com/software/sas9/
31. Press Announcements.FDA approves first 3-D mammography imaging system [Internet]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm243072.htm. Accessed September 5, 2013.
32. F. Cavagnetto, G. Taccini, R. Rosasco, R. Bampi, M. Calabrese, and A. Tagliafico "In Vivo" average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography Radiat Prot Dosimetry 157 2013 53 61
33. S.S.J. Feng, and I. Sechopoulos Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization Radiology 263 2012 35 42