Cargando…

Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration

OBJECTIVES: To compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening. METHODS: A prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D im...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skaane, Per, Bandos, Andriy I., Gullien, Randi, Eben, Ellen B., Ekseth, Ulrika, Haakenaasen, Unni, Izadi, Mina, Jebsen, Ingvild N., Jahr, Gunnar, Krager, Mona, Hofvind, Solveig
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3701792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553585
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2820-3
_version_ 1782275704803557376
author Skaane, Per
Bandos, Andriy I.
Gullien, Randi
Eben, Ellen B.
Ekseth, Ulrika
Haakenaasen, Unni
Izadi, Mina
Jebsen, Ingvild N.
Jahr, Gunnar
Krager, Mona
Hofvind, Solveig
author_facet Skaane, Per
Bandos, Andriy I.
Gullien, Randi
Eben, Ellen B.
Ekseth, Ulrika
Haakenaasen, Unni
Izadi, Mina
Jebsen, Ingvild N.
Jahr, Gunnar
Krager, Mona
Hofvind, Solveig
author_sort Skaane, Per
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening. METHODS: A prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A—2D; Arm B—2D + CAD; Arm C—2D + 3D; Arm D—synthesised 2D + 3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A + B) and 2D + 3D (Arm C + D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Pre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D + 3D, respectively (P < 0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P = 0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P < 0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P = 0.97). Using 2D + 3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Double reading of 2D + 3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial. • Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations. • Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3701792
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37017922013-07-10 Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration Skaane, Per Bandos, Andriy I. Gullien, Randi Eben, Ellen B. Ekseth, Ulrika Haakenaasen, Unni Izadi, Mina Jebsen, Ingvild N. Jahr, Gunnar Krager, Mona Hofvind, Solveig Eur Radiol Breast OBJECTIVES: To compare double readings when interpreting full field digital mammography (2D) and tomosynthesis (3D) during mammographic screening. METHODS: A prospective, Ethical Committee approved screening study is underway. During the first year 12,621 consenting women underwent both 2D and 3D imaging. Each examination was independently interpreted by four radiologists under four reading modes: Arm A—2D; Arm B—2D + CAD; Arm C—2D + 3D; Arm D—synthesised 2D + 3D. Examinations with a positive score by at least one reader were discussed at an arbitration meeting before a final management decision. Paired double reading of 2D (Arm A + B) and 2D + 3D (Arm C + D) were analysed. Performance measures were compared using generalised linear mixed models, accounting for inter-reader performance heterogeneity (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Pre-arbitration false-positive scores were 10.3 % (1,286/12,501) and 8.5 % (1,057/12,501) for 2D and 2D + 3D, respectively (P < 0.001). Recall rates were 2.9 % (365/12,621) and 3.7 % (463/12,621), respectively (P = 0.005). Cancer detection was 7.1 (90/12,621) and 9.4 (119/12,621) per 1,000 examinations, respectively (30 % increase, P < 0.001); positive predictive values (detected cancer patients per 100 recalls) were 24.7 % and 25.5 %, respectively (P = 0.97). Using 2D + 3D, double-reading radiologists detected 27 additional invasive cancers (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Double reading of 2D + 3D significantly improves the cancer detection rate in mammography screening. KEY POINTS: • Tomosynthesis-based screening was successfully implemented in a large prospective screening trial. • Double reading of tomosynthesis-based examinations significantly reduced false-positive interpretations. • Double reading of tomosynthesis significantly increased the detection of invasive cancers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2013-04-04 2013-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3701792/ /pubmed/23553585 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2820-3 Text en © European Society of Radiology 2013
spellingShingle Breast
Skaane, Per
Bandos, Andriy I.
Gullien, Randi
Eben, Ellen B.
Ekseth, Ulrika
Haakenaasen, Unni
Izadi, Mina
Jebsen, Ingvild N.
Jahr, Gunnar
Krager, Mona
Hofvind, Solveig
Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
title Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
title_full Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
title_fullStr Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
title_full_unstemmed Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
title_short Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
title_sort prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (ffdm) versus combined ffdm and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration
topic Breast
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3701792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553585
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2820-3
work_keys_str_mv AT skaaneper prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT bandosandriyi prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT gullienrandi prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT ebenellenb prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT eksethulrika prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT haakenaasenunni prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT izadimina prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT jebseningvildn prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT jahrgunnar prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT kragermona prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration
AT hofvindsolveig prospectivetrialcomparingfullfielddigitalmammographyffdmversuscombinedffdmandtomosynthesisinapopulationbasedscreeningprogrammeusingindependentdoublereadingwitharbitration