nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.07.2010 | Breast

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study

verfasst von: Gisella Gennaro, Alicia Toledano, Cosimo di Maggio, Enrica Baldan, Elisabetta Bezzon, Manuela La Grassa, Luigi Pescarini, Ilaria Polico, Alessandro Proietti, Aida Toffoli, Pier Carlo Muzzio

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2010

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To compare the clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic population.

Methods

The study enrolled 200 consenting women who had at least one breast lesion discovered by mammography and/or ultrasound classified as doubtful or suspicious or probably malignant. They underwent tomosynthesis in one view [mediolateral oblique (MLO)] of both breasts at a dose comparable to that of standard screen-film mammography in two views [craniocaudal (CC) and MLO]. Images were rated by six breast radiologists using the BIRADS score. Ratings were compared with the truth established according to the standard of care and a multiple-reader multiple-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. Clinical performance of DBT compared with that of FFDM was evaluated in terms of the difference between areas under ROC curves (AUCs) for BIRADS scores.

Results

Overall clinical performance with DBT and FFDM for malignant versus all other cases was not significantly different (AUCs 0.851 vs 0.836, p = 0.645). The lower limit of the 95% CI or the difference between DBT and FFDM AUCs was −4.9%.

Conclusion

Clinical performance of tomosynthesis in one view at the same total dose as standard screen-film mammography is not inferior to digital mammography in two views.

Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Ophsal-Ong BH, Landberg CE, Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Moore R, Albagli D, DeJoule MC, Fitzgerald PF, Fobare DF, Giambattista BW, Kwasnick RF, Liu J, Lubowski SJ, Possin GE, Richotte JF, Wei C-Y, Wirth RF (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMed

Dobbins JT III, Godfrey DJ (2003) Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 48:R65–R106CrossRefPubMed

Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics (Suppl 1):S231–S240

Rafferty E (2007) Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin N Am 45:831–843CrossRefPubMed

van Tiggelen R (2002) In search for the third dimension: from radiostereoscopy to three-dimensional imaging. JBR-BTR 85:266–270PubMed

Mahesh M (2004) Digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 24:1747–1760CrossRefPubMed

Spahn M (2005) Flat detectors and their clinical applications. Eur Radiol 15:1934–1947CrossRefPubMed

Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ (2005) Digital mammography. Radiology 234:353–362CrossRefPubMed

Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (eds) Medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 2006 6142:61425-E

10.

Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedhantam S, D’Orsi C, Karellas A (2007) Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 34:331–232

11.

Ma AKW, Darambera DG, Stewart A, Gunn S, Bullard E (2008) Mean glandular dose estimation using MNCPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum + silver x-ray anode/filter combination. Med Phys 35:5278–5289CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gong X, Glick SJ, Liu B, Vedula AA, Thacker S (2006) A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT breast-imaging. Med Phys 33:1041–1052CrossRefPubMed

13.

Zhao B, Zhao W (2008) Three-dimensional linear system analysis for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 35:5219–5232CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zhou J, Zhao B, Zhao W (2007) A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys 34:1098–1109CrossRefPubMed

15.

Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders RS, Lo JY, Baker JA (2008) A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. Med Phys 35:1337–1345CrossRefPubMed

16.

Wang X, Mainprize JG, Kempston MP, Mawdsley GE, Yaffe MJ (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis geometry calibration. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (ed) Medical imaging 2007: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 2007 6510:65103B

17.

Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedhantam S, D’Orsi C, Karellas A (2007) Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 34:564–576CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wu T, Moore RH, Kopans DB (2006) Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:1461–1471

20.

Zhang Y, Chan H-P, Sahiner B, Wei J, Goodsitt MM, Hadjiiski LM, Ge J, Zhou C (2006) A comparative study of limited angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:3781–3795CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chan H-P, Sahiner B, Rafferty EA, Wu T, Roubidoux MA, Moore RH, Kopans DB, Hadjiiski LM, Helvie MA (2005) Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. Radiology 237:1075–1080CrossRefPubMed

22.

Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, Wu T, Rafferty EA, Moore R, Kopans DB (2006) Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from projection images. Med Phys 33:482–491CrossRefPubMed

23.

Chan H-P, Wei J, Zhang Y, Helvie MA, Moore RH, Sahiner B, Hadjiiski LM, Kopans DB (2008) Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. Med Phys 35:4087–4095CrossRefPubMed

24.

Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Edwards AV, Kopans DB, Schmidt RA, Papaioannou J, Moore RH (2008) Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study. Med Phys 35:1486–1493CrossRefPubMed

25.

Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623CrossRefPubMed

26.

Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Gur D (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869CrossRefPubMed

27.

Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, Timberg A (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

28.

Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L (2008) Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. LNCS 5116:61–66

29.

van Engen R, van Wouldenberg S, Bosmans H, Young K, Thjissen M (2006) European protocol for the quality control of the physical aspects of mammography screening—Screen-film mammography. In: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, 4th edn. European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 61–104

30.

Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240CrossRefPubMed

31.

American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). American College of Radiology, Reston

32.

Metz CE, Pan X (1999) “Proper” binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 43:1–33CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pesce LL, Metz CE (2007) Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of “proper” binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 14:814–829CrossRefPubMed

34.

Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS (2000) A contaminated binormal model for ROC data: part II. A formal model. Acad Radiol 7:427–437CrossRefPubMed

35.

Obuchowski NA (2007) New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 243:10–12CrossRefPubMed

36.

Obuchowski NA (1995) Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 2:S22–S29CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619CrossRefPubMed

38.

Obuchowski NA (1997) Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:13–17PubMed

39.

Gennaro G, di Maggio C (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. Eur Radiol 16:2559–2566CrossRefPubMed

40.

Samei E, Saunders RS, Baker JA, Delong DM (2007) Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diangostic performance. Radiology 243:396–404CrossRefPubMed

41.

Svahn T, Hemdal B, Ruschin M, Chakraborty DP, Andersson I, Tingberg A, Mattsson S (2007) Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Br J Radiol 80:557–562CrossRefPubMed

42.

Dobbins JT III (2009) Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. Med Phys 36:1956–1967CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study
verfasst von: Gisella Gennaro
Alicia Toledano
Cosimo di Maggio
Enrica Baldan
Elisabetta Bezzon
Manuela La Grassa
Luigi Pescarini
Ilaria Polico
Alessandro Proietti
Aida Toffoli
Pier Carlo Muzzio
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2010
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study