116 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Impact of lung cancer screening results on participant health-related quality of life and state anxiety in the National Lung Screening Trial
BACKGROUND Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung screening has been associated with a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality. A major barrier to the adoption of lung screening is the potential negative psychological impact of a false-positive (FP) screen, occurring in 20% to 50% of those screened. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of abnormal findings on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and anxiety in the American College of Radiology (ACRIN)/National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). METHODS The NLST was a randomized screening trial comparing LDCT with chest X-ray screening (CXR). This study was part of the original protocol. A total of 2812 participants at 16 of 23 ACRIN sites who had baseline HRQoL assessments were asked to complete the Short Form-36 and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (form Y-1) questionnaires to assess short-term (1 month) and long-term (6 months) effects of screening. FP were lung cancer–free at 1 year, and true-positives (TP) were not. RESULTS Of the total participants, 1024 (36.4%) participants were FP, 63 (2.2%) were TP, 344 (12.2%) had significant incidental findings (SIFs), and 1381 (49.1%) had negative screens. Participants had been randomized to LDCT (n = 1947) and CXR (n = 865). Short-term and long-term HRQoL and state anxiety did not differ across participants with FP, SIF, or negative screens. Short-term and long-term HRQoL were lower and anxiety was higher for TP participants compared to participants with FP, SIF, and negative screens. CONCLUSIONS In a large multicenter lung screening trial, participants receiving a false-positive or SIF screen result experienced no significant difference in HRQoL or state anxiety at 1 or at 6 months after screening relative to those receiving a negative result. Cancer 2014;120:3401–3409. © 2014 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. In a large multi-center lung screening trial, participants receiving a false positive or significant incidental finding screen result experienced no significant difference in health related quality of life or state anxiety at 1 or at 6 months after screening relative to those receiving a negative result
Coronary computed tomography angiography compared with single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging as a guide to optimal medical therapy in patients presenting with stable angina: The RESCUE trial
Background The RESCUE (Randomized Evaluation of Patients with Stable Angina Comparing Utilization of Noninvasive Examinations) trial was a randomized, controlled, multicenter, comparative efficacy outcomes trial designed to assess whether initial testing with coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is noninferior to single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging in directing patients with stable angina to optimal medical therapy alone or optimal medical therapy with revascularization. Methods and Results The end point was first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (cardiac death or myocardial infarction), or revascularization. Noninferiority margin for CCTA was set a priori as a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.3 (95% CI=0, 1.605). One thousand fifty participants from 44 sites were randomized to CCTA (n=518) or SPECT (n=532). Mean follow-up time was 16.2 (SD 7.9) months. There were no cardiac-related deaths. In patients with a negative CCTA there was 1 acute myocardial infarction; in patients with a negative SPECT examination there were 2 acute myocardial infarctions; and for positive CCTA and SPECT, 1 acute myocardial infarction each. Participants in the CCTA arm had a similar rate of MACE or revascularization compared with those in the SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging arm, (HR, 1.03; 95% CI=0.61-1.75)
Comparison of Acquisition Parameters and Breast Dose in Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial
The purpose of our study was to compare the technical performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and screen-film mammography
rPOP: Robust PET-Only Processing of Community Acquired Heterogeneous Amyloid-PET Data
The reference standard for amyloid-PET quantification requires structural MRI (sMRI) for preprocessing in both multi-site research studies and clinical trials. Here we describe rPOP (robust PET-Only Processing), a MATLAB-based MRI-free pipeline implementing non-linear warping and differential smoothing of amyloid-PET scans performed with any of the FDA-approved radiotracers (18F-florbetapir/FBP, 18F-florbetaben/FBB or 18F-flutemetamol/FLUTE). Each image undergoes spatial normalization based on weighted PET templates and data-driven differential smoothing, then allowing users to perform their quantification of choice. Prior to normalization, users can choose whether to automatically reset the origin of the image to the center of mass or proceed with the pipeline with the image as it is. We validate rPOP with n = 740 (514 FBP, 182 FBB, 44 FLUTE) amyloid-PET scans from the Imaging Dementia—Evidence for Amyloid Scanning – Brain Health Registry sub-study (IDEAS-BHR) and n = 1,518 scans from the Alzheimer\u27s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 1,249 FBP, n = 269 FBB), including heterogeneous acquisition and reconstruction protocols. After running rPOP, a standard quantification to extract Standardized Uptake Value ratios and the respective Centiloids conversion was performed. rPOP-based amyloid status (using an independent pathology-based threshold of ≥24.4 Centiloid units) was compared with either local visual reads (IDEAS-BHR, n = 663 with complete valid data and reads available) or with amyloid status derived from an MRI-based PET processing pipeline (ADNI, thresholds of \u3e20/\u3e18 Centiloids for FBP/FBB). Finally, within the ADNI dataset, we tested the linear associations between rPOP- and MRI-based Centiloid values. rPOP achieved accurate warping for N = 2,233/2,258 (98.9%) in the first pass. Of the N = 25 warping failures, 24 were rescued with manual reorientation and origin reset prior to warping. We observed high concordance between rPOP-based amyloid status and both visual reads (IDEAS-BHR, Cohen\u27s k = 0.72 [0.7–0.74], ∼86% concordance) or MRI-pipeline based amyloid status (ADNI, k = 0.88 [0.87–0.89], ∼94% concordance). rPOP- and MRI-pipeline based Centiloids were strongly linearly related (R2:0.95, p\u3c0.001), with this association being significantly modulated by estimated PET resolution (β= -0.016, p\u3c0.001). rPOP provides reliable MRI-free amyloid-PET warping and quantification, leveraging widely available software and only requiring an attenuation-corrected amyloid-PET image as input. The rPOP pipeline enables the comparison and merging of heterogeneous datasets and is publicly available at https://github.com/leoiacca/rPO
Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts):checklist, explanation, and elaboration
For many users of the biomedical literature, abstracts may be the only source of information about a study. Hence, abstracts should allow readers to evaluate the objectives, key design features, and main results of the study. Several evaluations have shown deficiencies in the reporting of journal and conference abstracts across study designs and research fields, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Incomplete reporting compromises the value of research to key stakeholders. The authors of this article have developed a 12 item checklist of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts). This article presents the checklist, examples of complete reporting, and explanations for each item of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts
Assessing the Standalone Sensitivity of Computer-aided Detection (CADe) with Cancer Cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST)
To assess the sensitivities and false detection rates of two CADe systems when applied to digital or screen-film mammograms in detecting the known breast cancer cases from the DMIST breast cancer screening population
Cancer Yield of Mammography, MR, and US in High-Risk Women: Prospective Multi-Institution Breast Cancer Screening Study
PURPOSE: To prospectively determine cancer yield, callback and biopsy rates, and positive predictive value (PPV) of mammography, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and ultrasonography (US) in women at high risk for breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant, and informed consent was obtained. We conducted a prospective pilot study of screening mammography, MR, and US in asymptomatic women 25 years of age or older who were genetically at high risk, defined as BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers or with at least a 20% probability of carrying a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation. All imaging modalities were performed within 90 days of each other. Data were analyzed by using exact confidence intervals (CIs) and the McNemar test.
RESULTS: A total of 195 women were enrolled in this study over a 6-month period, and 171 completed all study examinations (mammography, US, and MR). Average age of the 171 participants was 46 years +/- 10.2 (standard deviation). Sixteen biopsies were performed and six cancers were detected, for an overall 3.5% cancer yield. MR enabled detection of all six cancers; mammography, two; and US, one. The diagnostic yields for each test were 3.5% for MR, 0.6% for US, and 1.2% for mammography. MR, US, and mammography findings prompted biopsy in 8.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% of patients, respectively. None of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. The PPV of biopsies performed as a result of MR was 43%.
CONCLUSION: Screening MR imaging had a higher biopsy rate but helped detect more cancers than either mammography or US. US had the highest false-negative rate compared with mammography and MR, enabling detection of only one in six cancers in high-risk women
P1‐349: Advancing Clinical And Biomarker Research In Ad: The Lead Study
Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152716/1/alzjjalz201906904.pd
Cancer Cases from ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Radiologist Analysis with Use of a Logistic Regression Model
To determine which factors contributed to the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) cancer detection results
- …