Role of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening and Diagnostic Breast Imaging

Niklason, 1997, Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging, Radiology, 205, 399, 10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356620 Poplack, 2007, Digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography, Am J Roentgenol, 189, 616, 10.2214/AJR.07.2231 Gur, 2009, Digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study, Am J Roentgenol, 193, 586, 10.2214/AJR.08.2031 Good, 2008, Digital breast tomosynthesis: A pilot observer study, Am J Roentgenol, 190, 865, 10.2214/AJR.07.2841 Gennaro, 2010, Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: A clinical performance study, Eur Radiol, 20, 1545, 10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5 Hakim, 2010, Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review, Am J Roentgenol, 195, 172, 10.2214/AJR.09.3244 Kopans, 2011, Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis, Breast J, 17, 638, 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01152.x Bernardi, 2012, Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 133, 267, 10.1007/s10549-012-1959-y Noroozian, 2012, Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization, Radiology, 262, 61, 10.1148/radiol.11101763 Destounis, 2014, Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment, J Clin Imaging Sci, 4, 9, 10.4103/2156-7514.127838 Available at: http://mygenius3d.com/pro/difference/; Hologic, Inc, Bedford (MA). Accessed May 3, 2017. MQSA National Statistics. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm. Accessed April 5, 2017. Gao, 2017, Digital breast tomosynthesis practice patterns following 2011 FDA approval: A survey of breast imaging radiologists, Acad Radiol, 24, 947, 10.1016/j.acra.2016.12.011 Hardesty, 2014, Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: A survey of physician members of the society of breast imaging, J Am Coll Radiol, 11, 594, 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.11.025 2017 Tabár, 1985, Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: Randomized trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, Lancet, 1, 829, 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92204-4 Tabár, 1989, The Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit, J Epidemiol Commun Health, 43, 107, 10.1136/jech.43.2.107 Tabár, 1995, Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial, Cancer, 75, 2507, 10.1002/1097-0142(19950515)75:10<2507::AID-CNCR2820751017>3.0.CO;2-H Tabár, 2000, The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later: Updated mortality results and new insights from long term follow-up, Radiol Clin North Am, 38, 625, 10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70191-3 Duncan, 1998, Incident round cancers: What lessons can we learn?, Clin Radiol, 53, 29e32, 10.1016/S0009-9260(98)80030-5 Day, 2000, Mammographic screening and mammographic patterns, Breast Cancer Res, 2, 247e51, 10.1186/bcr64 Kolb, 2002, Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations, Radiology, 225, 165e75, 10.1148/radiol.2251011667 Rosenberg, 1998, Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: Review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Radiology, 209, 511e8, 10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807581 Skaane, 2013, Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program, Radiology, 267, 47, 10.1148/radiol.12121373 Ciatto, 2013, Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): A prospective comparison study, Lancet Oncol, 14, 583, 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7 Rose, 2013, Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: An observational study, Am J Roentgenol, 200, 1401, 10.2214/AJR.12.9672 Friedewald, 2014, Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography, J Am Med Assoc, 311, 2499, 10.1001/jama.2014.6095 McCarthy, 2014, Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program, JNCI, 106, 1, 10.1093/jnci/dju316 Durand, 2015, Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography, Radiology, 274, 85, 10.1148/radiol.14131319 Lourenco, 2015, Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis, Radiology, 274, 337, 10.1148/radiol.14140317 Haas, 2013, Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening, Radiology, 269, 694, 10.1148/radiol.13130307 Sharpe, 2016, Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program, Radiology, 278, 698, 10.1148/radiol.2015142036 McDonald, 2015, Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis, Am J Roentgenol, 205, 1143, 10.2214/AJR.15.14406 Powell, 2017, Impact of the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to standard 2D digital screening mammography on the rates of patient recall, cancer detection, and recommendation for short-term follow-up, Acad Radiol, 24, 302, 10.1016/j.acra.2016.10.001 Conant, 2016, Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: A cohort study within the PROSPR consortium, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 156, 109, 10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1 Lang, 2016, Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study, Eur Radiol, 26, 184, 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3 Butler R, Hui A, Chen C, et al. Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening on Diagnostic Work-Up Patterns. Presented at: Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, November 25-November 30, 2012. http://archive.rsna.org/2012/12026179.html. Accessed May 4, 2017. Destounis, 2015, Screening for dense breasts: Digital breast tomosynthesis, Am J Roentgenol, 204, 261, 10.2214/AJR.14.13554 Rafferty, 2016, Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis and digital mammography in dense and nondense breasts, J Am Med Assoc, 315, 1784, 10.1001/jama.2016.1708 Gur, 2012, Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: An observer performance study, Acad Radiol, 19, 166, 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003 Zuckerman, 2016, Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program, Radiology, 218, 730, 10.1148/radiol.2016160366 Freer, 2017, Synthesized digital mammography imaging, Radiol Clin N Am, 55, 503, 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.12.005 Peters, 2017, Comparison of the detection rate of simulated microcalcifications in full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and synthetically reconstructed 2-dimensional images performed with 2 different digital x-ray mammography systems, Investig Radiol, 52, 206, 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000334 Dang, 2014, Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations, Radiology, 270, 49, 10.1148/radiol.13130765 Skaane P. Trends in Time to Interpretation of Tomosynthesis Based Screening Examinations With Increasing Experience. Radiological Society of North America 2013 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, December 1-December 6, 2013. Friedewald, 2017, Breast tomosynthesis practical considerations, Radiol Clin N Am, 55, 493, 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.12.004 Drew, 2016, Image toggling saves time in mammography, J Med Imaging, 3, 011003, 10.1117/1.JMI.3.1.011003 Brandt, 2013, Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting, Am J Roentgenol, 200, 291, 10.2214/AJR.12.8881 Raghu, 2016, Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: Changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time, Radiology, 281, 54, 10.1148/radiol.2016151999 Morel, 2014, The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography, Clin Radiol, 69, 1112, 10.1016/j.crad.2014.06.005 Whelehan, 2017, Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: A multi-reader study, Clin Radiol, 72, 10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011 Peppard, 2015, Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications, RadioGraphics, 35, 975, 10.1148/rg.2015140204 Yankaskas, 2001, Reassessment of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography: a community-based study, Am J Roentgenol, 177, 535, 10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770535 Burrell, 2001, False-negative breast screening assessment: what lessons can we learn?, Clin Radiol, 56, 385, 10.1053/crad.2001.0662 Dang P, Humphrey K, Freer P, et al. Comparison of Lesion Detection and Characterization in Invasive Cancers Using Breast Tomosynthesis versus Conventional Mammography. Radiological Society of North America 2013 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, December 1-December 6, 2013. http://archive.rsna.org/2013/13016918.html. Accessed April 27, 2017. Partyka, 2014, Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: Initial clinical experience, Am J Roentgenol, 203, 216, 10.2214/AJR.13.11047 Harvey, 2013 Venkatesan, 2009, Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables, Radiology, 250, 648, 10.1148/radiol.2503080541 Doyle, 2007, Radial scars/complex sclerosing lesions and malignancy in a screening programme: incidence and histological features revisited, Histopathology, 50, 607, 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02660.x Destounis S, Morgan R, Arieno A. Increase in Radial Scar Detection With DBT: A Benefit or Limitation of the Technology? Presented at: American Roentgen Ray Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, April 30-May 5, 2017. ElMaadawy MM, Seely JM, Doherty G, et al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Evaluation of Focal Mammographic Asymmetry, Do You Still Need Coned Compression Views? Presented at: Radiological Society of North America 2012 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago IL, November 25-November 30, 2012. http://archive.rsna.org/2012/12026336.html. Accessed April 27, 2017. Nicholson BT, Raymond S, Rochman CM, et al. Comparison of Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting to 2D Mammography for the Evaluation of Focal Asymmetry Recalled From Screening. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Roentgen Ray Society, San Diego, CA, May 4-9, 2014. Nakashima, 2017, Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: Are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?, Eur Radiol, 27, 570, 10.1007/s00330-016-4420-5 Freer, 2015, Preoperative tomosynthesis-guided needle localization of mammographically and sonographically occult breast lesions, Radiology, 275, 377, 10.1148/radiol.14140515 Schrading, 2015, Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy, Radiology, 274, 654, 10.1148/radiol.14141397 Waldherr, 2016, Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: A feasibility study, Eur Radiol, 26, 1582, 10.1007/s00330-015-4009-4