Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 106, Issue 11, 2014, Pages

  McCarthy, Anne Marie ^a   Kontos, Despina ^b   Synnestvedt, Marie ^a,b   Tan, Kay See ^a   Heitjan, Daniel F ^a   Schnall, Mitchell ^c   Conant, Emily F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PENNSYLVANIA; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; REGISTER;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PENNSYLVANIA; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REGISTRIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84985034252     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju316     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716-726, W236.
2. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727-737, W237-W242.
3. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014301.
4. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014302.
5. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):399-406.
6. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-Art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(10):1298-1310.
7. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48(5):917-929.
8. 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.
9. Lee CI, Lehman CD. Digital breast tomosynthesis and the challenges of implementing an emerging breast cancer screening technology into clinical practice. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(12):913-917.
10. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2): 586-591.
11. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(3):616-623.
12. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(5):831-843, vii.
13. US Food and Drug Administration. Summary of safety and effectiveness data. Available at:www.fdagov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM324866.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2014.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a populationbased screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47-56.
17. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, et al. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401-1408.
18. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694-700.
19. Friedwald AM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311(24):2499-2507.
20. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th edition. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-Breast Imaging Atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
21. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
22. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, et al. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270(1):49-56