首页> 外文期刊>European radiology >A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial
【24h】

A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial

机译:在卑尔根的基于人口筛查中的数字乳房断层合成的随机对照试验与数字乳房X线摄影:临时分析待试验中的绩效指标

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

ObjectivesTo describe a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of digital breast tomosynthesis including synthesized two-dimensional mammograms (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population-based screening program for breast cancer and to compare selected secondary screening outcomes for the two techniques.MethodsThis RCT, performed in Bergen as part of BreastScreen Norway, was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical Health Research Ethics. All screening attendees in Bergen were invited to participate, of which 89% (14,274/15,976) concented during the first year, and were randomized to DBT (n = 7155) or DM (n = 7119). Secondary screening outcomes were stratified by mammographic density and compared using two-sample t-tests, chi-square tests, ANOVA, negative binomial regression and tests of proportions (z tests).ResultsMean reading time was 1 min 11 s for DBT and 41 s for DM (p 0.01). Mean time spent at consensus was 3 min 12 s for DBT and 2 min 12 s for DM (p 0.01), while the rate of cases discussed at consensus was 6.4% and 7.4%, respectively for DBT and DM (p = 0.03). The recall rate was 3.0% for DBT and 3.6% for DM (p = 0.03). For women with non-dense breasts, recall rate was 2.2% for DBT versus 3.4% for DM (p = 0.04). The rate did not differ for women with dense breasts (3.6% for both). Mean glandular dose per examination was 2.96 mGy for DBT and 2.95 mGy for DM (p = 0.433).ConclusionsInterim analysis of a screening RCT showed that DBT took longer to read than DM, but had significantly lower recall rate than DM. We found no differences in radiation dose between the two techniques.Key Points center dot In this RCT, DBT was associated with longer interpretation time than DM center dot Recall rates were lower for DBT than for DM center dot Mean glandular radiation dose did not differ between DBT and DM
机译:Objectivesto描述了数字乳房断层合成的随机对照试验(RCT),包括合成的二维乳腺照片(DBT)与数字乳房X线摄影(DM)在基于乳腺癌的群体筛查程序中,并比较两种技术的选定的二次筛选结果。在卑尔根作为乳房挪威的一部分,由医疗卫生研究道德的区域委员会批准,在卑尔根进行的方法。邀请卑尔根的所有筛查与会者参加,其中在第一年的119%(14,274 / 15,976)中有89%(14,274 / 15,976),并随机分为DBT(n = 7155)或DM(n = 7119)。二次筛选结果通过乳房X光密度分层,并使用双样本T检验进行比较,Chi-Square测试,Anova,负二进制回归和比例测试(Z测试).Resultsme​​an读数时间为1分钟11秒,为DBT和41秒对于DM(P <0.01)。对于DBT的平均花费3分钟,2分钟为2分12秒(P <0.01),分别为DBT和DM讨论的病例率分别为6.4%和7.4%(P = 0.03 )。 DBT的召回率为3.0%,3.6%(P = 0.03)。对于具有非密集乳房的女性,DBT的DBT与3.4%的召回率为2.2%(P = 0.04)。乳房致密的女性没有差异(两者均为3.6%)。平均腺剂量每次检查为2.96 MGY,DM为2.95 MGY(P = 0.433).ClclusionsInterImm分析筛选RCT的分析显示,DBT需要更长的读取比DM,但召回率明显低于DM。我们发现两种技术之间的辐射剂量没有差异。在该RCT中,DBT与DM中心点召回速率较低的较长的解释时间与DM中心点较低的较长的解释时间相关联,而不是DM中心点意味着腺体辐射剂量没有区别DBT和DM.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号