Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 7/2019

08.02.2019 | Breast

Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs

verfasst von: Valentina Iotti, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Andrea Nitrosi, Sara Ravaioli, Rita Vacondio, Cinzia Campari, Vanessa Marchesi, Moira Ragazzi, Marco Bertolini, Giulia Besutti, Carlo Alberto Mori, Pierpaolo Pattacini, the RETomo Working Group

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to be more sensitive than digital mammography, but it requires longer reading time. We retrospectively compared accuracy and reading times of a simplified protocol with 1-cm-thick slabs versus a standard protocol of slabs + 1-mm-spaced planes, both integrated with synthetic 2D.

Methods

We randomly selected 894 DBTs (including 12 cancers) from the experimental arm of the RETomo trial. DBTs were read by two radiologists to estimate specificity. A second set of 24 cancers (8 also present in the first set) mixed within 276 negative DBTs was read by two radiologists. In total, 28 cancers with 64 readings were used to estimate sensitivity. Radiologists read with both protocols separated by a 3-month washout. Only women that were positive at the screening reading were assessed. Variance was estimated taking into account repeated measures.

Results

Sensitivity was 82.8% (53/64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 67.2–92.2) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.2–95.8) with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. In the random screening setting, specificity was 97.9% (1727/1764, 95% CI 97.1–98.5) and 96.3% (95% CI 95.3–97.1), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was 0.68 and 0.54 with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. Median reading times with simplified protocol were 20% to 30% shorter than with standard protocol.

Conclusions

A simplified protocol reduced reading time and false positives but may have a negative impact on sensitivity.

Key Points

• The adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, more sensitive than mammography, could be limited by its potential effect on the radiologists’ workload, i.e., increased reading time and fatigue.
• A DBT simplified protocol with slab only, compared to a standard protocol (slab plus planes) both integrated with synthetic 2D, reduced time and false positives but had a negative impact on sensitivity.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279–296CrossRefPubMed Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279–296CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19(4):614–622 Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19(4):614–622
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Council of the European Union (2003) Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/878/EC). OJ L 327, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 34–38 Council of the European Union (2003) Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/878/EC). OJ L 327, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 34–38
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Dibden A, Offman J, Parmar D et al (2014) Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme. Br J Cancer 110:560–564CrossRefPubMed Dibden A, Offman J, Parmar D et al (2014) Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme. Br J Cancer 110:560–564CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(13):1081–1087CrossRefPubMed Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(13):1081–1087CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277:663–684 Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277:663–684
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190 Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1105–1113CrossRefPubMed Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol 17(8):1105–1113CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743 McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S et al (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 170745. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170745 Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S et al (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 170745. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1148/​radiol.​2017170745
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Morra L, Sacchetto D, Durando M et al (2015) Breast cancer: computer-aided detection with digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 277(1):56–63CrossRefPubMed Morra L, Sacchetto D, Durando M et al (2015) Breast cancer: computer-aided detection with digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 277(1):56–63CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis randomized Trial. Radiology 288(2):375–385 Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis randomized Trial. Radiology 288(2):375–385
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56 Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Campari C, Giorgi Rossi P, Mori CA et al (2016) Impact of the introduction of digital mammography in an organized screening program on the recall and detection rate. J Digit Imaging 29(2):235–242CrossRefPubMed Campari C, Giorgi Rossi P, Mori CA et al (2016) Impact of the introduction of digital mammography in an organized screening program on the recall and detection rate. J Digit Imaging 29(2):235–242CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Tang ML, Tang NS, Chan IS, Chan BP (2002) Sample size determination for establishing equivalence/noninferiority via ratio of two proportions in matched-pair design. Biometrics 58(4):957–963 Tang ML, Tang NS, Chan IS, Chan BP (2002) Sample size determination for establishing equivalence/noninferiority via ratio of two proportions in matched-pair design. Biometrics 58(4):957–963
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Eliasziw M, Donner A (1991) Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Stat Med 10:1981–1991CrossRefPubMed Eliasziw M, Donner A (1991) Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Stat Med 10:1981–1991CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Wolter KM (2007) Introduction to variance estimation, 2nd edn. Springer, New York Wolter KM (2007) Introduction to variance estimation, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat StataCorp (2013) Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. StataCorp LP, College Station StataCorp (2013) Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. StataCorp LP, College Station
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Galati F, Marzocca F, Bassetti E et al (2017) Added value of digital breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader agreement: changes in BI-RADS rate and follow-up management. Breast Care (Basel) 12(4):218–222. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477537 CrossRef Galati F, Marzocca F, Bassetti E et al (2017) Added value of digital breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader agreement: changes in BI-RADS rate and follow-up management. Breast Care (Basel) 12(4):218–222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1159/​000477537 CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi WJ, Kim HH, Lee SY et al (2016) A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23(6):886–892CrossRefPubMed Choi WJ, Kim HH, Lee SY et al (2016) A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23(6):886–892CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat van Schie G, Wallis MG, Leifland K, Danielsson M, Karssemeijer N (2013) Mass detection in reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis volumes with a computer-aided detection system trained on 2D mammograms. Med Phys 40(4):041902 van Schie G, Wallis MG, Leifland K, Danielsson M, Karssemeijer N (2013) Mass detection in reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis volumes with a computer-aided detection system trained on 2D mammograms. Med Phys 40(4):041902
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Samala RK, Chan HP, Hadjiiski L, Helvie MA, Wei J, Cha K (2016) Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography. Med Phys 43(12):6654 Samala RK, Chan HP, Hadjiiski L, Helvie MA, Wei J, Cha K (2016) Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography. Med Phys 43(12):6654
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Balleyguier C, Arfi-Rouche J, Levy L et al (2017) Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: a pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD). Eur J Radiol 97:83–89CrossRefPubMed Balleyguier C, Arfi-Rouche J, Levy L et al (2017) Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: a pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD). Eur J Radiol 97:83–89CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY (2017) Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 24:1–10 Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY (2017) Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 24:1–10
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Dustler M, Andersson M, Fornvik D, Timberg P, Timberg A (2013) A study of the feasibility of using slabbing to reduce tomosynthesis review time. Proc. SPIE 8673 Medical Imaging 86731L Dustler M, Andersson M, Fornvik D, Timberg P, Timberg A (2013) A study of the feasibility of using slabbing to reduce tomosynthesis review time. Proc. SPIE 8673 Medical Imaging 86731L
Metadaten
Titel
Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs
verfasst von
Valentina Iotti
Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Andrea Nitrosi
Sara Ravaioli
Rita Vacondio
Cinzia Campari
Vanessa Marchesi
Moira Ragazzi
Marco Bertolini
Giulia Besutti
Carlo Alberto Mori
Pierpaolo Pattacini
the RETomo Working Group
Publikationsdatum
08.02.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5978-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2019

European Radiology 7/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.