Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 1/2019

21.06.2018 | Breast

Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications

verfasst von: Ji Soo Choi, Boo-Kyung Han, Eun Young Ko, Ga Ram Kim, Eun Sook Ko, Ko Woon Park

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To compare the performance of synthetic mammography (SM) and digital mammography (DM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or alone for the evaluation of microcalcifications.

Methods

This retrospective study includes 198 mammography cases, all with DM, SM, and DBT images, from January to October 2013. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded the presence of microcalcifications and their conspicuity scores and final BI-RADS categories (1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5). Readers' area under the ROC curves (AUCs) were analyzed for SM plus DBT vs. DM plus DBT and SM alone vs. DM alone using the BI-RADS categories for the overall group and dense breast subgroup.

Results

Conspicuity scores of detected microcalcifications were neither significantly different between SM and DM with DBT nor alone (p>0.05). In predicting malignancy of detected microcalcifications, no significant difference was found between readers' AUCs for SM and DM with DBT or alone in the overall group or dense breast subgroup (p>0.05).

Conclusions

Diagnostic performances of SM and DM for the evaluation of microcalcifications are not significantly different, whether performed with DBT or alone.

Key Points

• In DBT-imaging, SM and DM show comparable performances when evaluating microcalcifications.
• For BI-RADS classification of microcalcifications, SM and DM show similar AUCs.
• DBT with SM may be sufficient for diagnosing microcalcifications, without DM.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Mendelson E, Morris E (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Mendelson E, Morris E (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston
2.
Zurück zum Zitat D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM (2003) ACR breast imaging and reporting data system: breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM (2003) ACR breast imaging and reporting data system: breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Conant EF (2014) Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Clin North Am 52:499–518CrossRef Conant EF (2014) Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Clin North Am 52:499–518CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRef Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717CrossRef Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191CrossRef Vigeland E, Klaasen H, Klingen TA, Hofvind S, Skaane P (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. Eur Radiol 18:183–191CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150CrossRef Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC (2016) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol 71:141–150CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRef Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529CrossRef Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796CrossRef Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788–796CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95CrossRef Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 277:697–706CrossRef Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology 277:697–706CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 17:638–644CrossRef Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 17:638–644CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25:9–14CrossRef Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25:9–14CrossRef
15.
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 267:47–56CrossRef 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 267:47–56CrossRef
16.
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 266:104–113CrossRef 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 266:104–113CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRef Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553CrossRef Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553CrossRef
19.
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 14:583–589CrossRef 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 14:583–589CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D (2012) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo 184:911–918CrossRef Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D (2012) Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo 184:911–918CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRef Houssami N, Skaane P (2013) Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 22:101–108CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Garayoa J, Chevalier M, Castillo M et al (2018) Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations. Eur Radiol 28:565–572CrossRef Garayoa J, Chevalier M, Castillo M et al (2018) Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations. Eur Radiol 28:565–572CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671CrossRef Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271:664–671CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRef Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271:655–663CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Hajian-Tilaki K (2014) Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform 48:193–204CrossRef Hajian-Tilaki K (2014) Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform 48:193–204CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY et al (2016) Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. Eur Radiol 26:2538–2546CrossRef Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY et al (2016) Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. Eur Radiol 26:2538–2546CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Park IH, Ko K, Joo J et al (2014) High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean women. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4124–4132CrossRef Park IH, Ko K, Joo J et al (2014) High volumetric breast density predicts risk for breast cancer in postmenopausal, but not premenopausal, Korean women. Ann Surg Oncol 21:4124–4132CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi JS, Lee CW, Seo HJ et al. (2012) Mammographic density assessment: comparison of VolparaTM software and visual BI-RADS classification. J Korean Soc Breast Screen 9: 127–132. Choi JS, Lee CW, Seo HJ et al. (2012) Mammographic density assessment: comparison of VolparaTM software and visual BI-RADS classification. J Korean Soc Breast Screen 9: 127–132.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19:166–171CrossRef Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19:166–171CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Kromke M, Palomino-Schatzlein M, Mayer H et al (2016) Profiling human blood serum metabolites by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a comprehensive tool for the evaluation of hemodialysis efficiency. Transl Res 171(71-82):e71–e79CrossRef Kromke M, Palomino-Schatzlein M, Mayer H et al (2016) Profiling human blood serum metabolites by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a comprehensive tool for the evaluation of hemodialysis efficiency. Transl Res 171(71-82):e71–e79CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRef DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA et al (2004) Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1840–1850CrossRef Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA et al (2004) Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1840–1850CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Peters S, Hellmich M, Stork A et al (2017) Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems. Invest Radiol 52:206–215CrossRef Peters S, Hellmich M, Stork A et al (2017) Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems. Invest Radiol 52:206–215CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Zuckerman SP CE, Weinstein S, Korhonen K, Synnestvedt M, McDonald E (2015) Early implementation of synthesized 2D in screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: a pictorial essay of early outcomes [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America 220 Zuckerman SP CE, Weinstein S, Korhonen K, Synnestvedt M, McDonald E (2015) Early implementation of synthesized 2D in screening with digital breast tomosynthesis: a pictorial essay of early outcomes [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America 220
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
verfasst von
Ji Soo Choi
Boo-Kyung Han
Eun Young Ko
Ga Ram Kim
Eun Sook Ko
Ko Woon Park
Publikationsdatum
21.06.2018
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5585-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

European Radiology 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

26.04.2024 Mammografie Nachrichten

Routinemäßige Mammografien helfen, Brustkrebs frühzeitig zu erkennen. Anhand der Röntgenuntersuchung lassen sich aber auch kardiovaskuläre Risikopatientinnen identifizieren. Als zuverlässiger Anhaltspunkt gilt die Verkalkung der Brustarterien.

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

23.04.2024 Pankreaskarzinom Nachrichten

Die Empfehlungen zur Therapie des Pankreaskarzinoms wurden um zwei Off-Label-Anwendungen erweitert. Und auch im Bereich der Früherkennung gibt es Aktualisierungen.

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

18.04.2024 Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin Nachrichten

Im Choosing-Wisely-Programm, das für die deutsche Initiative „Klug entscheiden“ Pate gestanden hat, sind erstmals Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Notfällen von Kindern erschienen. Fünf Dinge gilt es demnach zu vermeiden.

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

13.04.2024 Klinik aktuell Kongressbericht

Die Teilnehmer eines Forums beim DGIM-Kongress waren sich einig: Fehler in der Medizin sind häufig in ungeeigneten Prozessen und mangelnder Kommunikation begründet. Gespräche mit Patienten und im Team können helfen.

Update Radiologie

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