Synthesized Mammography. The New Standard of Care When Screening for Breast Cancer with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis?

Emily Ambinder, Susan Harvey, Babita Panigrahi, Ximin Li, Ryan W. Woods

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with synthesized mammography (SM) vs combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all screening studies utilizing FFDM + DBT (n = 7845) and SM + DBT (n = 14,776) between April 1, 2013, and February 15, 2016. Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the two groups. A generalized linear mixed model specifying the reading radiologist as the random effect and controlling for age was used to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The overall recall rate was significantly lower in the SM + DBT cohort compared to the FFDM + DBT cohort (7.06% vs 7.63%, . P = .04). There was no difference in biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR between the two groups. Conclusions: When DBT is performed for screening, the use of SM rather than acquiring an additional FFDM has no significant effect on biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR. We found a decrease in recall rate in the SM + DBT group, which may be related to the learning curve of interpreting DBT. These findings support the use of SM for patients undergoing screening with DBT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAcademic Radiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Mammography
Standard of Care
Breast Neoplasms
Biopsy
Neoplasms
Learning Curve

Keywords

  • Breast neoplasms
  • Early detection of cancer
  • Mammography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Synthesized Mammography. The New Standard of Care When Screening for Breast Cancer with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis? / Ambinder, Emily; Harvey, Susan; Panigrahi, Babita; Li, Ximin; Woods, Ryan W.

In: Academic Radiology, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f4a44e20d692424aaad2c45d2e9f87c7,
title = "Synthesized Mammography. The New Standard of Care When Screening for Breast Cancer with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis?",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with synthesized mammography (SM) vs combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all screening studies utilizing FFDM + DBT (n = 7845) and SM + DBT (n = 14,776) between April 1, 2013, and February 15, 2016. Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the two groups. A generalized linear mixed model specifying the reading radiologist as the random effect and controlling for age was used to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The overall recall rate was significantly lower in the SM + DBT cohort compared to the FFDM + DBT cohort (7.06{\%} vs 7.63{\%}, . P = .04). There was no difference in biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR between the two groups. Conclusions: When DBT is performed for screening, the use of SM rather than acquiring an additional FFDM has no significant effect on biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR. We found a decrease in recall rate in the SM + DBT group, which may be related to the learning curve of interpreting DBT. These findings support the use of SM for patients undergoing screening with DBT.",
keywords = "Breast neoplasms, Early detection of cancer, Mammography",
author = "Emily Ambinder and Susan Harvey and Babita Panigrahi and Ximin Li and Woods, {Ryan W.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.015",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Synthesized Mammography. The New Standard of Care When Screening for Breast Cancer with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis?

AU - Ambinder, Emily

AU - Harvey, Susan

AU - Panigrahi, Babita

AU - Li, Ximin

AU - Woods, Ryan W.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Rationale and Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with synthesized mammography (SM) vs combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all screening studies utilizing FFDM + DBT (n = 7845) and SM + DBT (n = 14,776) between April 1, 2013, and February 15, 2016. Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the two groups. A generalized linear mixed model specifying the reading radiologist as the random effect and controlling for age was used to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The overall recall rate was significantly lower in the SM + DBT cohort compared to the FFDM + DBT cohort (7.06% vs 7.63%, . P = .04). There was no difference in biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR between the two groups. Conclusions: When DBT is performed for screening, the use of SM rather than acquiring an additional FFDM has no significant effect on biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR. We found a decrease in recall rate in the SM + DBT group, which may be related to the learning curve of interpreting DBT. These findings support the use of SM for patients undergoing screening with DBT.

AB - Rationale and Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the screening performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with synthesized mammography (SM) vs combined with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all screening studies utilizing FFDM + DBT (n = 7845) and SM + DBT (n = 14,776) between April 1, 2013, and February 15, 2016. Recall rate, biopsy rate, positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), positive predictive value 3 (PPV3), and cancer detection rate (CDR) were compared between the two groups. A generalized linear mixed model specifying the reading radiologist as the random effect and controlling for age was used to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results: The overall recall rate was significantly lower in the SM + DBT cohort compared to the FFDM + DBT cohort (7.06% vs 7.63%, . P = .04). There was no difference in biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR between the two groups. Conclusions: When DBT is performed for screening, the use of SM rather than acquiring an additional FFDM has no significant effect on biopsy rate, PPV1, PPV3, or CDR. We found a decrease in recall rate in the SM + DBT group, which may be related to the learning curve of interpreting DBT. These findings support the use of SM for patients undergoing screening with DBT.

KW - Breast neoplasms

KW - Early detection of cancer

KW - Mammography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040924650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85040924650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.015

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 29395801

AN - SCOPUS:85040924650

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

ER -