Initial Experience with Combination Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Full Field Digital Mammography or Full Field Digital Mammography Alone in the Screening Environment

被引:35
作者
Destounis, Stamatia [1 ]
Arieno, Andrea [1 ]
Morgan, Renee [1 ]
机构
[1] Elizabeth Wende Breast Care LLC, 170 Sawgrass Dr, Rochester, NY 14620 USA
关键词
Breast imaging; digital breast tomosynthesis; screening mammography;
D O I
10.4103/2156-7514.127838
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objectives: Initial review of patients undergoing screening mammography imaged with a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus full field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM alone. Materials and Methods: From June 2011 to December 2011, all patients presenting for routine screening mammography were offered a combination DBT plus FFDM exam. Under institutional review board approval, we reviewed 524 patients who opted for combination DBT plus FFDM and selected a sample group of 524 FFDM screening exams from the same time period for a comparative analysis. The chi(2) (Chi-square) test was used to compare recall rates, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer between the two groups. Results: Recall rate for FFDM, 11.45%, was significantly higher (P < 0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (4.20%). The biopsy rate in the FFDM group was 2.29% (12/524), with a cancer detection rate of 0.38% (2/524, or 3.8 per 1000) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 16.7% (2/12). The biopsy rate for the DBT plus FFDM group was 1.14% (n = 6/524), with a cancer detection rate 0.57% (n = 3/524, or 5.7 per 1000) and PPV of 50.0% (n = 3/6). Personal history of breast cancer in the FFDM group was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group; 2.5% and 5.7%, respectively. A significant difference in family history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001) was found, with a higher rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (36.0% vs. 53.8%). There was a significant difference between the combination DBT plus FFDM group and FFDM alone group, when comparing breast density (P < 0.0147, 61.64% vs. 54.20% dense breasts, respectively) with a higher rate of dense breasts in the DBT plus FFDM group. In follow-up, one cancer was detected within one year of normal screening mammogram in the combination DBT plus FFDM group. Conclusion: Our initial experience found the recall rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group was significantly lower than in the FFDM alone group, despite the fact that the combination DBT plus FFDM group had additional risk factors.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time [J].
Bernardi, D. ;
Ciatto, S. ;
Pellegrini, M. ;
Anesi, V. ;
Burlon, S. ;
Cauli, E. ;
Depaoli, M. ;
Larentis, L. ;
Malesani, V. ;
Targa, L. ;
Baldo, P. ;
Houssami, N. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 85 (1020) :E1174-E1178
[2]   Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Conventional Diagnostic Mammography Views for Screening Recalls Without Calcifications? A Comparison Study in a Simulated Clinical Setting [J].
Brandt, Kathleen R. ;
Craig, Daniel A. ;
Hoskins, Tanya L. ;
Henrichsen, Tara L. ;
Bendel, Emily C. ;
Brandt, Stephanie R. ;
Mandrekar, Jay .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 200 (02) :291-298
[3]   Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study [J].
Gennaro, Gisella ;
Toledano, Alicia ;
di Maggio, Cosimo ;
Baldan, Enrica ;
Bezzon, Elisabetta ;
La Grassa, Manuela ;
Pescarini, Luigi ;
Polico, Ilaria ;
Proietti, Alessandro ;
Toffoli, Aida ;
Muzzio, Pier Carlo .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2010, 20 (07) :1545-1553
[4]   Digital breast tomosynthesis: A pilot observer study [J].
Good, Walter F. ;
Abrams, Gordon S. ;
Catullo, Victor J. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Gur, David .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2008, 190 (04) :865-869
[5]   Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system [J].
Gur, D ;
Sumkin, JH ;
Rockette, HE ;
Ganott, M ;
Hakim, C ;
Hardesty, L ;
Poller, WR ;
Shah, R ;
Wallace, L .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (03) :185-190
[6]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study [J].
Gur, David ;
Abrams, Gordon S. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Perrin, Ronald L. ;
Rathfon, Grace Y. ;
Sumkin, Jules H. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Bandos, Andriy I. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (02) :586-591
[7]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Environment: A Subjective Side-by-Side Review [J].
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Sumkin, Jules H. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Gur, David .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2010, 195 (02) :W172-W176
[8]  
HOLLAND R, 1982, CANCER, V49, P2527, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19820615)49:12<2527::AID-CNCR2820491220>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-E
[10]   Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography of breast cancer [J].
Lewin, JM ;
D'Orsi, CJ ;
Hendrick, RE ;
Moss, LJ ;
Isaacs, PK ;
Karellas, A ;
Cutter, GR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2002, 179 (03) :671-677