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

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. | LitMetric

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography Screening Performance on Successive Screening Rounds from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Radiology

From the Departments of Surgery (B.L.S.) and Radiology (B.L.S., S.D.H.), University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, UHC Bldg, Room 4425, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT 05401; Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Wash (R.Y.C., Y.R.S., E.J.A.B., D.L.M.); Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Wash (K.P.L., C.I.L.); Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif (K.K.); Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (L.M.H.); Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah (T.O.); Department of Radiology, Giesel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH (R.M.d.F.A.); and Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California-Davis, Davis, Calif (D.L.M.).

Published: June 2023

Background Prior cross-sectional studies have observed that breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has a lower recall rate and higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM). Purpose To evaluate breast cancer screening outcomes with DBT versus DM on successive screening rounds. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from 58 breast imaging facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were collected. Analysis included women aged 40-79 years undergoing DBT or DM screening from 2011 to 2020. Absolute differences in screening outcomes by modality and screening round were estimated during the study period by using generalized estimating equations with marginal standardization to adjust for differences in women's risk characteristics across modality and round. Results A total of 523 485 DBT examinations (mean age of women, 58.7 years ± 9.7 [SD]) and 1 008 123 DM examinations (mean age, 58.4 years ± 9.8) among 504 863 women were evaluated. DBT and DM recall rates decreased with successive screening round, but absolute recall rates in each round were significantly lower with DBT versus DM (round 1 difference, -3.3% [95% CI: -4.6, -2.1] [ < .001]; round 2 difference, -1.8% [95% CI: -2.9, -0.7] [ = .003]; round 3 or above difference, -1.2% [95% CI: -2.4, -0.1] [ = .03]). DBT had significantly higher cancer detection (difference, 0.6 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 0.2, 1.1]; = .009) compared with DM only for round 3 and above. There were no significant differences in interval cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.24, 0.30] [ = .96]; round 2 or above difference, 0.04 [95% CI: -0.19, 0.31] [ = .76]) or total advanced cancer rate (round 1 difference, 0.00 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: -0.15, 0.19] [ = .94]; round 2 or above difference, -0.06 [95% CI: -0.18, 0.11] [ = .43]). Conclusion DBT had lower recall rates and could help detect more cancers than DM across three screening rounds, with no difference in interval or advanced cancer rates. © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Skaane in this issue.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10315524PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.223142DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

round difference
28
breast cancer
16
successive screening
12
screening rounds
12
round
12
recall rates
12
1000 examinations
12
examinations [95%
12
screening
10
cancer
9

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!