Factors affecting recall rate and false positive fraction in breast cancer screening with breast tomosynthesis - A statistical approach

Breast

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 680-686

  Rosso, Aldana ^a   Lång, Kristina ^c   Petersson, Ingemar F ^a,b   Zackrisson, Sophia ^c  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Binary marginal generalized linear models; Breast cancer screening; Classification and regression trees; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Generalized estimating equations

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST EXAMINATION; CALCULATION; CANCER SCREENING; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT RECALL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMARY GLAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PATIENT REFERRAL; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LINEAR MODELS; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84952637591     PISSN: 09609776     EISSN: 15323080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012 Nov, 380(9855):1778-1786.
2. Laming D., Warren R. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. J Med Screen 2000, 7(1):24-30.
3. Skaane P., Bandos A.I., Gullien R., Eben E.B., Ekseth U., Haakenaasen U., et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013 Apr, 267(1):47-56.
4. Haas B.M., Kalra V., Geisel J., Raghu M., Durand M., Philpotts L.E. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013 Dec, 269(3):694-700.
5. Roth R.G., Maidment A.D.A., Weinstein S.P., Roth S.O., Conant E.F. Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics 2014 Aug, 34(4):E89-E102.
6. Hofvind S., Ponti A., Patnick J., Ascunce N., Njor S., Broeders M., et al. False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen 2012 Sep 1, 19(Suppl. 1):57-66.
7. Ciatto S., Houssami N., Bernardi D., Caumo F., Pellegrini M., Brunelli S., et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013 Jun, 14(7):583-589.
8. Friedewald S.M., Rafferty E.A., Rose S.L., Durand M.A., Plecha D.M., Greenberg J.S., et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014 Jun 25, 311(24):2499-2507.
9. Houssami N., Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast Edinb Scotl 2013 Apr, 22(2):101-108.
10. Lång K., Andersson I., Rosso A., Tingberg A., Timberg P., Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö breast tomosynthesis screening trial, a population based study. Eur J Radiol 2015, 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3.
11. Elmore J.G., Barton M.B., Moceri V.M., Polk S., Arena P.J., Fletcher S.W. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998 Apr 16, 338(16):1089-1096.
12. Breiman L., Friedman J., Stone C.J., Olshen R.A. Classification and regression trees 1984, 368. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, N.Y. 1st ed.
13. Lemon S.C., Roy J., Clark M.A., Friedmann P.D., Rakowski W. Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med Publ Soc Behav Med 2003 Dec, 26(3):172-181.
14. Mohktar M.S., Redmond S.J., Antoniades N.C., Rochford P.D., Pretto J.J., Basilakis J., et al. Predicting the risk of exacerbation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using home telehealth measurement data. Artif Intell Med 2015 Jan, 63(1):51-59.
15. Nilsson J., Ohlsson M., Höglund P., Ekmehag B., Koul B., Andersson B. The International Heart Transplant Survival Algorithm (IHTSA): a new model to improve organ sharing and survival. PloS One 2015, 10(3):e0118644.
16. Austin P.C., Tu J.V., Ho J.E., Levy D., Lee D.S. Using methods from the data-mining and machine-learning literature for disease classification and prediction: a case study examining classification of heart failure subtypes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013 Apr, 66(4):398-407.
17. Austin P.C. A comparison of regression trees, logistic regression, generalized additive models, and multivariate adaptive regression splines for predicting AMI mortality. Stat Med 2007 Jul 10, 26(15):2937-2957.
18. Pepe M.S. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction 2004, 318. Oxford University Press. 1st ed.
19. The National Board of Health and Welfare Nationella riktlinjer för bröst-, prostata-, tjocktarms- och ändtarmscancervård [Internet] 2014, Available from:. http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/19383/2014-4-2.pdf.
20. Svahn T.M., Chakraborty D.P., Ikeda D., Zackrisson S., Do Y., Mattsson S., et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 2012 Nov, 85(1019):e1074-e1082.
21. Svahn T., Andersson I., Chakraborty D., Svensson S., Ikeda D., Förnvik 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 Dosim 2010 May, 139(1-3):113-117.
22. Andersson I., Ikeda D.M., Zackrisson S., Ruschin M., Svahn T., Timberg P., 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 Dec, 18(12):2817-2825.
23. Sickles E, DDOrsi C, Basselt L, et al. ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th ed. [Internet] American College of Radiology; Available from: . http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/BIRADS.
24. Carney P.A., Miglioretti D.L., Yankaskas B.C., Kerlikowske K., Rosenberg R., Rutter C.M., et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003 Feb 4, 138(3):168-175.
25. Teertstra H.J., Loo C.E., van den Bosch M.A.A.J., van Tinteren H., Rutgers E.J.T., Muller S.H., et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010 Jan, 20(1):16-24.
26. Wallis M.G., 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.
27. Svahn T., Lång K., Andersson I., Zackrisson S. Differences in radiologists' experiences and performance in breast tomosynthesis. Breast imaging [Internet] 2012, 377-385. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Available from:. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31271-7_49, A.A. Maidment, P. Bakic, S. Gavenonis (Eds.).
28. Zhang H., Singer B. Recursive partitioning and applications 2010, 262. Springer, New York, 2010 edition. 2nd ed.