| Title |
Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-016-3695-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily F. Conant, Elisabeth F. Beaber, Brian L. Sprague, Sally D. Herschorn, Donald L. Weaver, Tracy Onega, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Anne Marie McCarthy, Steven P. Poplack, Jennifer S. Haas, Katrina Armstrong, Mitchell D. Schnall, William E. Barlow |
| Abstract |
Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is emerging as the new standard of care for breast cancer screening based on improved cancer detection coupled with reductions in recall compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, many prior studies lack follow-up data to assess false negatives examinations. The purpose of this study is to assess if DBT is associated with improved screening outcomes based on follow-up data from tumor registries or pathology. Retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from three research centers performing DBT screening in the PROSPR consortium from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Recall and biopsy rates were assessed from 198,881 women age 40-74 years undergoing screening (142,883 DM and 55,998 DBT examinations). Cancer, cancer detection, and false negative rates and positive predictive values were assessed on examinations with one year of follow-up. Logistic regression was used to compare DBT to DM adjusting for research center, age, prior breast imaging, and breast density. There was a reduction in recall with DBT compared to DM (8.7 vs. 10.4 %, p < 0.0001), with adjusted OR = 0.68 (95 % CI = 0.65-0.71). DBT demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cancer detection over DM (5.9 vs. 4.4/1000 screened, adjusted OR = 1.45, 95 % CI = 1.12-1.88), an improvement in PPV1 (6.4 % for DBT vs. 4.1 % for DM, adjusted OR = 2.02, 95 % CI = 1.54-2.65), and no significant difference in false negative rates for DBT compared to DM (0.46 vs. 0.60/1000 screened, p = 0.347). Our data support implementation of DBT screening based on increased cancer detection, reduced recall, and no difference in false negative screening examinations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 132 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 29 | 22% |
| Unknown | 38 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 13% |
| Engineering | 10 | 8% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 2% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Unknown | 43 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,895,550
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#441
of 4,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,603
of 298,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#5
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.