Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice

被引:44
作者
Freer, Phoebe E. [1 ]
Riegert, Joanna [1 ]
Eisenmenger, Laura [2 ]
Ose, Dominik [3 ]
Winkler, Nicole [1 ]
Stein, Matthew A. [1 ]
Stoddard, Gregory J. [4 ]
Hess, Rachel [3 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utah, Huntsman Canc Inst, Radiol & Imaging Sci, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 USA
[2] Univ Utah, Radiol & Imaging Sci, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[3] Univ Utah, Populat Hlth Sci, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[4] Univ Utah, Family & Prevent Med, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[5] Univ Utah, Internal Med, Salt Lake City, UT USA
关键词
Breast cancer; Screening; Mammography; Tomosynthesis; Cancer detection; Digital breast tomosynthesis; RECONSTRUCTED PROJECTION IMAGES; LOGISTIC-REGRESSION; COMBINATION;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Most published studies evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) included a separate 2-dimensional full-field digital mammogram (FFDM) for DBT screening protocols, increasing radiation from screening mammography. Synthesized mammography (SM) creates a 2-dimensional image from the DBT source data, and if used in place of FFDM, it reduces radiation of DBT screening. This study evaluated the implementation of SM + DBT in routine screening practice in terms of recall rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), % of minimal cancers, % of node-positive cancers, and positive predictive values (PPV). A multivariate retrospective institutional analysis was performed on 31,979 women who obtained screening mammography (10/2013-12/2015) with cohorts divided by modality (SM + DBT, FFDM + DBT, and FFDM). We adjusted for comparison mammograms, age, breast density, and the interpreting radiologist. Recall type was analyzed for differences (focal asymmetry, asymmetry, masses, calcifications, architectural distortion). SM + DBT significantly decreased the recall rate compared to FFDM (5.52 vs. 7.83%, p < 0.001) with no differences in overall CDR (p = 0.66), invasive and/or in situ CDR, or percentages of minimal and node-negative cancers. PPV1 significantly increased with SM + DBT relative to FFDM (9.1 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.02). SM + DBT did not differ significantly in recall rate or overall CDR compared to FFDM + DBT. There were statistically significant differences in certain findings recalled by screening modality (e.g., focal asymmetries). SM + DBT reduces false positives compared to FFDM, while maintaining the CDR and other desirable audit outcome data. SM + DBT is more accurate than FFDM alone, and is a desirable alternative to FFDM + DBT, given the added benefit of radiation reduction.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 509
页数:9
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study [J].
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Macaskill, Petra ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Ostillio, Livio ;
Tuttobene, Paolina ;
Luparia, Andrea ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2016, 17 (08) :1105-1113
[2]   Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study [J].
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Caumo, Francesca ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Brunelli, Silvia ;
Tuttobene, Paola ;
Bricolo, Paola ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Montemezzi, Stefania ;
Macaskill, Petra .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2013, 14 (07) :583-589
[3]  
D'Orsi C.J., 2013, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data SystemACR BI-RADS Atlas
[4]   Clinical Digital Breast Tomosynthesis System: Dosimetric Characterization [J].
Feng, Steve Si Jia ;
Sechopoulos, Ioannis .
RADIOLOGY, 2012, 263 (01) :35-42
[5]   Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography [J].
Friedewald, Sarah M. ;
Rafferty, Elizabeth A. ;
Rose, Stephen L. ;
Durand, Melissa A. ;
Plecha, Donna M. ;
Greenberg, Julianne S. ;
Hayes, Mary K. ;
Copit, Debra S. ;
Carlson, Kara L. ;
Cink, Thomas M. ;
Barke, Lora D. ;
Greer, Linda N. ;
Miller, Dave P. ;
Conant, Emily F. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24) :2499-2507
[6]   Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial) [J].
Gilbert, Fiona J. ;
Tucker, Lorraine ;
Gillan, Maureen G. C. ;
Willsher, Paula ;
Cooke, Julie ;
Duncan, Karen A. ;
Michell, Michael J. ;
Dobson, Hilary M. ;
Lim, Yit Yoong ;
Suaris, Tamara ;
Astley, Susan M. ;
Morrish, Oliver ;
Young, Kenneth C. ;
Duffy, Stephen W. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 277 (03) :697-706
[7]   Dose Reduction in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Screening using Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: An Observer Performance Study [J].
Gur, David ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Anello, Maria I. ;
Rathfon, Grace Y. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Wallace, Luisa ;
Lu, Amy ;
Bandos, Andriy I. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2012, 19 (02) :166-171
[8]   Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening [J].
Haas, Brian M. ;
Kalra, Vivek ;
Geisel, Jaime ;
Raghu, Madhavi ;
Durand, Melissa ;
Philpotts, Liane E. .
RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (03) :694-700
[9]   Screening Outcomes Following Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a General-Population Screening Program [J].
McCarthy, Anne Marie ;
Kontos, Despina ;
Synnestvedt, Marie ;
Tan, Kay See ;
Heitjan, Daniel F. ;
Schnall, Mitchell ;
Conant, Emily F. .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2014, 106 (11)
[10]   Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening [J].
McDonald, Elizabeth S. ;
Oustimov, Andrew ;
Weinstein, Susan P. ;
Synnestvedt, Marie B. ;
Schnall, Mitchell ;
Conant, Emily F. .
JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2016, 2 (06) :737-743