Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGilbert, Fionaen
dc.contributor.authorTucker, Lorraineen
dc.contributor.authorGillan, Maureen GCen
dc.contributor.authorWillsher, Paulaen
dc.contributor.authorCooke, Julieen
dc.contributor.authorDuncan, Karen Aen
dc.contributor.authorMichell, Michael Jen
dc.contributor.authorDobson, Hilary Men
dc.contributor.authorLim, Yit Yoongen
dc.contributor.authorSuaris, Tamaraen
dc.contributor.authorAstley, Susan Men
dc.contributor.authorMorrish, Oliveren
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Kenneth Cen
dc.contributor.authorDuffy, Stephen Wen
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-17T14:33:03Z
dc.date.available2015-08-17T14:33:03Z
dc.date.issued2015-05-01en
dc.identifier.citationRadiology 2015, 277(3), 697-706. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142566en
dc.identifier.issn0033-8419
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/250278
dc.description.abstractPurpose To compare the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional (2D) mammography, 2D mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT in depicting malignant radiographic features. Materials and Methods In this multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study (the TOMMY trial), after written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29–85 years; mean, 56 years) were recruited from July 2011 to March 2013 in an ethically approved study. From these women, a reading dataset of 7060 cases was randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammography images, (b) 2D mammography plus DBT images, and (c) synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT images. Reviewers had no access to results of previous examinations. Overall sensitivities and specificities were calculated for younger women and those with dense breasts. Results Overall sensitivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT. The addition of DBT was associated with a 34% increase in the odds of depicting cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, P = .06); however, this level did not achieve significance. For patients aged 50–59 years old, sensitivity was significantly higher (P = .01) for 2D mammography plus DBT than it was for 2D mammography. For those with breast density of 50% or more, sensitivity was 86% for 2D mammography compared with 93% for 2D mammography plus DBT (P = .03). Specificity was 57% for 2D mammography, 70% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 72% for synthetic 2D mammography plusmDBT. Specificity was significantly higher than 2D mammography (P < .001in both cases) and was observed for all subgroups (P < .001 for all cases). Conclusion The addition of DBT increased the sensitivity of 2D mammography in patients with dense breasts and the specificity of 2D mammography for all subgroups. The use of synthetic 2D DBT demonstrated performance similar to that of standard 2D mammography with DBT. DBT is of potential benefit to screening programs, particularly in younger women with dense breasts. © RSNA, 2015
dc.description.sponsorshipThe TOMMY Trial (a comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis with mammography in the UK Breast Screening Programme) was supported by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRadiological Society of North America
dc.titleAccuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial)en
dc.typeArticle
dc.description.versionThis is the final published version of the article. It was originally published in Radiology (Gilbert et al., Radiology, 2015, doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142566). The final version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142566en
prism.endingPage706
prism.publicationDate2015en
prism.publicationNameRadiologyen
prism.startingPage697
prism.volume277en
dc.rioxxterms.funderNIHR
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1148/radiol.2015142566en
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-05-01en
dc.contributor.orcidGilbert, Fiona [0000-0002-0124-9962]
dc.identifier.eissn1527-1315
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
pubs.funder-project-idCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH) (3819/1415/ 19)
pubs.funder-project-idNIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC) (HTA/09/22/182)
pubs.funder-project-idDepartment of Health (via National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)) (09/22/182)


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record