6 results match your criteria: "TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center[Affiliation]"
Radiology
February 2021
From the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06510 (M.A.D.); Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Ill (S.M.F., F.M.D.); Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio (D.M.P.); Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, Pa (D.S.C.); Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers and Radiology Imaging Associates, Denver, Colo (L.D.B.); TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, Houston, Tex (S.L.R.); Solis Women's Health, Dallas, Tex (S.L.R.); Radiology Associates of Hollywood and Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, Fla (M.K.H.); John C. Lincoln Breast Health and Research Center, Phoenix, Ariz (L.N.G.); and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (E.F.C.).
Background Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) improves breast cancer detection and recall rates compared with those obtained with digital mammography (DM); however, the impact of DBT on patient survival has not been established. False-negative (FN) screening examinations can be a surrogate for long-term outcomes, such as breast cancer morbidity and mortality. Purpose To determine if screening with DBT is associated with lower FN rates, detection of cancers with more favorable prognoses, and improved performance outcomes versus DM.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBreast Cancer Res Treat
August 2017
, Tetonia, ID, USA.
Purpose: To determine the effect of tomosynthesis imaging as a function of age for breast cancer screening.
Methods: Screening performance metrics from 13 institutions were examined for 12 months prior to introduction of tomosynthesis (period 1) and compared to those after introduction of tomosynthesis (period 2, range 3-22 months). Screening metrics for women ages 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ , included rates per 1000 screens for recalls, biopsies, cancers, and invasive cancers detected.
Semin Roentgenol
April 2015
Department of Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Acad Radiol
September 2014
TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, 17030 Red Oak Dr, Houston, TX 77090.
Rationale And Objectives: To compare performance of prospective interpretations of clinical tomosynthesis (digital breast tomosynthesis [DBT]) plus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) examinations with retrospective readings of the corresponding FFDM examinations alone.
Methods And Materials: Seven Mammography Quality Standard Act-qualified radiologists retrospectively interpreted 10,878 FFDM examinations that had been interpreted by other radiologists during prospective clinical interpretations of DBT plus FFDM. The radiologists were blinded to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) category given during the clinical interpretations and the verified outcome by follow-up and/or any diagnostic workup that may have followed.
JAMA
June 2014
Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Importance: Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results.
Objective: To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States.
AJR Am J Roentgenol
June 2013
TOPS Comprehensive Breast Center, 17030 Red Oak Dr, Houston, TX 77090, USA.
Objective: Digital mammography combined with tomosynthesis is gaining clinical acceptance, but data are limited that show its impact in the clinical environment. We assessed the changes in performance measures, if any, after the introduction of tomosynthesis systems into our clinical practice.
Materials And Methods: In this observational study, we used verified practice- and outcome-related databases to compute and compare recall rates, biopsy rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for six radiologists who interpreted screening mammography studies without (n = 13,856) and with (n = 9499) the use of tomosynthesis.