A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Supplemental Breast MRI for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts: Results of the Second Screening Round of the DENSE Trial. | LitMetric

Supplemental Breast MRI for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts: Results of the Second Screening Round of the DENSE Trial.

Radiology

From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (S.G.A.V., S.V.d.L., M.F.B., E.M.M., C.H.v.G.), Department of Radiology (S.V.d.L., R.M.P., M.J.E., W.P.T.M.M., M.A.A.J.v.d.B., W.B.V.), and Department of Pathology (P.J.v.D.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, STR 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.P.); Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (R.M.M., N.K.); Department of Radiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (P.K.d.K.D.); Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (R.H.C.B.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands (M.D.F.d.J.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (K.M.D.); Department of Radiology, Hospital Group Twente (ZGT), Almelo, the Netherlands (J.V.); and Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (H.J.d.K.).

Published: May 2021

Background In the first (prevalent) supplemental MRI screening round of the Dense Tissue and Early Breast Neoplasm Screening (DENSE) trial, a considerable number of breast cancers were found at the cost of an increased false-positive rate (FPR). In incident screening rounds, a lower cancer detection rate (CDR) is expected due to a smaller pool of prevalent cancers, and a reduced FPR, due to the availability of prior MRI examinations. Purpose To investigate screening performance indicators of the second round (incidence round) of the DENSE trial. Materials and Methods The DENSE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01315015) is embedded within the Dutch population-based biennial mammography screening program for women aged 50-75 years. MRI examinations were performed between December 2011 and January 2016. Women were eligible for the second round when they again had a negative screening mammogram 2 years after their first MRI. The recall rate, biopsy rate, CDR, FPR, positive predictive values, and distributions of tumor characteristics were calculated and compared with results of the first round using 95% CIs and χ tests. Results A total of 3436 women (median age, 56 years; interquartile range, 48-64 years) underwent a second MRI screening. The CDR was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 3.8, 9.0) compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 13.3, 20.5) in the first round. The FPR was 26.3 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 21.5, 32.3) in the second round versus 79.8 per 1000 screening examinations (95% CI: 72.4, 87.9) in the first round. The positive predictive value for recall was 18% (20 of 110 participants recalled; 95% CI: 12.1, 26.4), and the positive predictive value for biopsy was 24% (20 of 84 participants who underwent biopsy; 95% CI: 16.0, 33.9), both comparable to that of the first round. All tumors in the second round were stage 0-I and node negative. Conclusion The incremental cancer detection rate in the second round was 5.8 per 1000 screening examinations-compared with 16.5 per 1000 screening examinations in the first round. This was accompanied by a strong reduction in the number of false-positive results. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Moy and Gao in this issue.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021203633DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

1000 screening
24
second round
20
screening examinations
20
dense trial
16
examinations 95%
16
screening
14
round
13
round dense
12
positive predictive
12
screening round
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!