Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 1/2018

14.07.2017 | Breast

Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion

verfasst von: Elizabeth H. Dibble, Ana P. Lourenco, Grayson L. Baird, Robert C. Ward, A. Stanley Maynard, Martha B. Mainiero

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare interobserver variability (IOV), reader confidence, and sensitivity/specificity in detecting architectural distortion (AD) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

Methods

This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study used a counterbalanced experimental design. We searched radiology reports for AD on screening mammograms from 5 March 2012–27 November 2013. Cases were consensus-reviewed. Controls were selected from demographically matched non-AD examinations. Two radiologists and two fellows blinded to outcomes independently reviewed images from two patient groups in two sessions. Readers recorded presence/absence of AD and confidence level. Agreement and differences in confidence and sensitivity/specificity between DBT versus DM and attendings versus fellows were examined using weighted Kappa and generalised mixed modeling, respectively.

Results

There were 59 AD patients and 59 controls for 1,888 observations (59 × 2 (cases and controls) × 2 breasts × 2 imaging techniques × 4 readers). For all readers, agreement improved with DBT versus DM (0.61 vs. 0.37). Confidence was higher with DBT, p = .001. DBT achieved higher sensitivity (.59 vs. .32), p < .001; specificity remained high (>.90). DBT achieved higher positive likelihood ratio values, smaller negative likelihood ratio values, and larger ROC values.

Conclusions

DBT decreases IOV, increases confidence, and improves sensitivity while maintaining high specificity in detecting AD.

Key points

Digital breast tomosynthesis decreases interobserver variability in the detection of architectural distortion.
Digital breast tomosynthesis increases reader confidence in the detection of architectural distortion.
Digital breast tomosynthesis improves sensitivity in the detection of architectural distortion.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Shaheen R, Schimmelpenninck CA, Stoddart L, Raymond H, Slanetz PJ (2011) Spectrum of diseases presenting as architectural distortion on mammography: multimodality radiologic imaging with pathologic correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32:351–362CrossRefPubMed Shaheen R, Schimmelpenninck CA, Stoddart L, Raymond H, Slanetz PJ (2011) Spectrum of diseases presenting as architectural distortion on mammography: multimodality radiologic imaging with pathologic correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32:351–362CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural Distortion on Mammography: Correlation With Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345CrossRefPubMed Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural Distortion on Mammography: Correlation With Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Gaur S, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL (2013) Architectural distortion of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W662–W670CrossRefPubMed Gaur S, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL (2013) Architectural distortion of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W662–W670CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR et al (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199:811–817CrossRefPubMed Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR et al (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199:811–817CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825CrossRefPubMed Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408CrossRefPubMed Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408CrossRefPubMed
8.
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 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed 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 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMed Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2015) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:337–342CrossRefPubMed Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2015) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:337–342CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222CrossRefPubMed Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA (2015) Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localisation of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions. Radiology 275:377–383 Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA (2015) Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localisation of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions. Radiology 275:377–383
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700CrossRefPubMed Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings. Breast J 21:538–542CrossRefPubMed Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings. Breast J 21:538–542CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA (2002) Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 9:531–540CrossRefPubMed Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA (2002) Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 9:531–540CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Onega T, Smith M, Miglioretti DL et al (2012) Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type. J Am Coll Radiol 9:788–794CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Onega T, Smith M, Miglioretti DL et al (2012) Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type. J Am Coll Radiol 9:788–794CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Suleiman WI, McEntee MF, Lewis SJ et al (2016) In the digital era, architectural distortion remains a challenging radiological task. Clin Radiol 71:e35–e40CrossRefPubMed Suleiman WI, McEntee MF, Lewis SJ et al (2016) In the digital era, architectural distortion remains a challenging radiological task. Clin Radiol 71:e35–e40CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Geller BM, Bogart A, Carney PA, Elmore JG, Monsees BS, Miglioretti DL (2012) Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W134–W141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Geller BM, Bogart A, Carney PA, Elmore JG, Monsees BS, Miglioretti DL (2012) Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W134–W141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM et al (2017) Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 283:371–380CrossRefPubMed Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM et al (2017) Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 283:371–380CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Lang K, Nergarden M, Andersson I, Rosso A, Zackrisson S (2016) False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Eur Radiol 26:3899–3907CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lang K, Nergarden M, Andersson I, Rosso A, Zackrisson S (2016) False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Eur Radiol 26:3899–3907CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Kalife ET, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Wang Y (2016) Clinical and Radiologic Follow-up Study for Biopsy Diagnosis of Radial Scar/Radial Sclerosing Lesion without Other Atypia. Breast J 22:637–644CrossRefPubMed Kalife ET, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Wang Y (2016) Clinical and Radiologic Follow-up Study for Biopsy Diagnosis of Radial Scar/Radial Sclerosing Lesion without Other Atypia. Breast J 22:637–644CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion
verfasst von
Elizabeth H. Dibble
Ana P. Lourenco
Grayson L. Baird
Robert C. Ward
A. Stanley Maynard
Martha B. Mainiero
Publikationsdatum
14.07.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4968-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

European Radiology 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

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