Dataset Information

Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation.

ABSTRACT: The limitations of mammography are well known and are partly related to the fact that with conventional imaging, the three-dimensional volume of the breast is imaged and presented in a two-dimensional format. Because normal breast tissue is similar in x-ray attenuation to some breast cancers, clinically relevant malignancies may be obscured by normal overlapping tissue. In addition, complex areas of normal tissue may be perceived as suspicious. The limitations of two-dimensional breast imaging lead to low sensitivity in detecting some cancers and high false-positive recall rates. Although mammographic screening has been shown to reduce breast cancer deaths by approximately 30%, controversy exists over when and how often screening mammography should occur. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly being implemented in breast imaging clinics around the world as early clinical data demonstrate that it may address some of the limitations of conventional mammography. With DBT, multiple low-dose x-ray images are acquired in an arc and reconstructed to create a three-dimensional image, thus minimizing the impact of overlapping breast tissue and improving lesion conspicuity. Early studies of screening DBT have shown decreased false-positive callback rates and increased rates of cancer detection (particularly for invasive cancers), resulting in increased sensitivity and specificity. In our clinical practice, we have completed more than 2 years of using two-view digital mammography combined with two-view DBT for all screening and select diagnostic imaging examinations (over 25,000 patients). Our experience, combined with previously published data, demonstrates that the combined use of DBT and digital mammography is associated with improved outcomes for screening and diagnostic imaging. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

SUBMITTER: Roth RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4319526 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul-Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation.

Roth Robyn Gartner RG Maidment Andrew D A AD Weinstein Susan P SP Roth Susan Orel SO Conant Emily F EF

Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 20140701 4

The limitations of mammography are well known and are partly related to the fact that with conventional imaging, the three-dimensional volume of the breast is imaged and presented in a two-dimensional format. Because normal breast tissue is similar in x-ray attenuation to some breast cancers, clinically relevant malignancies may be obscured by normal overlapping tissue. In addition, complex areas of normal tissue may be perceived as suspicious. The limitations of two-dimensional breast imaging l ...[more]

PMID: 25019451

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening, the potential of DBT density measures for breast cancer risk assessment remains largely unexplored. Purpose To compare associations of breast density estimates from DBT and DM with breast cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-control study used contralateral DM/DBT studies from women with unilateral breast cancer and age- and ethnicity-matched controls (September 19, 2011-January 6, 2015). Volumetric percent density (VPD%) was estimated from DBT using previously validated software. For comparison, the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment software package, or LIBRA, was used to estimate area-based percent density (APD%) from raw and processed DM images. The commercial Quantra and Volpara software packages were applied to raw DM images to estimate VPD% with use of physics-based models. Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression was performed to examine density associations (odds ratios [OR]) with breast cancer, adjusting for age and body mass index. Results A total of 132 women diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 60 years ± 11) and 528 controls (mean age, 60 years ± 11) were included. Moderate correlations between DBT and DM density measures (r = 0.32-0.75; all P < .001) were observed. Volumetric density estimates calculated from DBT (OR, 2.3 [95% CI: 1.6, 3.4] per SD for VPD%DBT) were more strongly associated with breast cancer than DM-derived density for both APD% (OR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.9, 1.9] [P < .001] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.3] [P = .004] per SD for LIBRA raw and processed data, respectively) and VPD% (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4] [P = .01] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.6] [P = .04] per SD for Volpara and Quantra, respectively). Conclusion The associations between quantitative breast density estimates and breast cancer risk are stronger for digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Yaffe in this issue.

Project description:Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Project description:ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251?384 DBT and 2?000?681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2?252?065 DM and DBT examinations (2?000?681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251?384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710?934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1?448?981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.

Project description:BackgroundMany large-scale cardiovascular clinical trials are plagued with escalating costs and low enrollment. Implementing a computable phenotype, which is a set of executable algorithms, to identify a group of clinical characteristics derivable from electronic health records or administrative claims records, is essential to successful recruitment in large-scale pragmatic clinical trials. This methods paper provides an overview of the development and implementation of a computable phenotype in ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: a Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness)-a pragmatic, randomized, open-label clinical trial testing the optimal dose of aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events.Methods and resultsA multidisciplinary team developed and tested the computable phenotype to identify adults ≥18 years of age with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without safety concerns around using aspirin and meeting trial eligibility criteria. Using the computable phenotype, investigators identified over 650 000 potentially eligible patients from the 40 participating sites from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network-a network of Clinical Data Research Networks, Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Health Plan Research Networks. Leveraging diverse recruitment methods, sites enrolled 15 076 participants from April 2016 to June 2019. During the process of developing and implementing the ADAPTABLE computable phenotype, several key lessons were learned. The accuracy and utility of a computable phenotype are dependent on the quality of the source data, which can be variable even with a common data model. Local validation and modification were required based on site factors, such as recruitment strategies, data quality, and local coding patterns. Sustained collaboration among a diverse team of researchers is needed during computable phenotype development and implementation.ConclusionsThe ADAPTABLE computable phenotype served as an efficient method to recruit patients in a multisite pragmatic clinical trial. This process of development and implementation will be informative for future large-scale, pragmatic clinical trials. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Dataset Information

Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation.

Publications

Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets