Effect of the availability of prior full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis images on the interpretation of mammograms

Radiology

Volumn 276, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 65-72

  Hakim, Christiane M ^a   Catullo, Victor J ^a   Chough, Denise M ^a   Ganott, Marie A ^a   Kelly, Amy E ^a   Shinde, Dilip D ^a   Sumkin, Jules H ^a   Wallace, Luisa P ^a   Bandos, Andriy I ^b   Gur, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

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

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BREAST DISEASE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST DISEASES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84937064828     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.15142009     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Selenia Dimensions 3D Systems - P080003. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm246400.htm. Published 2013. Accessed August 1, 2014.
2. 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.
3. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
4. 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.
5. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47-56.
6. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266(1):104-113.
7. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1020):e1174-e1178.
8. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499-2507.
9. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(3):687-693.
10. Sumkin JH, Holbert BL, Herrmann JS, et al. Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(2):343-346.
11. Thurfjell MG, Vitak B, Azavedo E, Svane G, Thurfjell E. Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. Acta Radiol 2000;41(1):52-56.
12. Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, et al. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 2007;242(1):70-77.
13. Varela C, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Use of prior mammograms in the classification of benign and malignant masses. Eur J Radiol 2005;56(2):248-255.
14. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):583-589.
15. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013;269(3):694-700.
16. Hakim CM, Anello MI, Cohen CS, et al. Impact of and interaction between the availability of prior examinations and DBT on the interpretation of negative and benign mammograms. Acad Radiol 2014;21(4):445-449.
17. Hillis SL, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. OR-DBM MRMC 3.0 for SAS. http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu. Published 2013. Accessed August 13, 2014.
18. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 2014;271(3):655-663.
19. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271(3):664-671.