Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 3/2013

01.03.2013 | Breast

Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography

verfasst von: Gisella Gennaro, R. Edward Hendrick, Patricia Ruppel, Roberta Chersevani, Cosimo di Maggio, Manuela La Grassa, Luigi Pescarini, Ilaria Polico, Alessandro Proietti, Enrica Baldan, Elisabetta Bezzon, Fabio Pomerri, Pier Carlo Muzzio

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To determine the performance of combined single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view cranio-caudal (CC) mammography (MX) compared with that of standard two-view digital mammography.

Methods

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted, involving six breast radiologists. Two hundred fifty patients underwent bilateral MX and DBT imaging. MX and DBT images with the adjunct of the CC-MX view from 469 breasts were evaluated and rated independently by six readers. Differences in mean areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), mean sensitivity and mean specificity were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess clinical performance.

Results

The combined technique was found to be non-inferior to standard two-view mammography (MX(CC+MLO)) in mean AUC (difference: +0.021;95 % LCL = −0.011), but was not statistically significant for superiority (P = 0.197). The combined technique had equivalent sensitivity to standard mammography (76.2 % vs. 72.8 %, P = 0.269) and equivalent specificity (84.9 % vs. 83.0 %, P = 0.130). Specificity for benign lesions was significantly higher with the combination of techniques versus mammography (45.6 % vs. 36.8 %, P = 0.002).

Conclusion

In this enriched study population, the combination of single-view MLO tomosynthesis plus single-view CC mammography was non-inferior to that of standard two-view digital mammography in terms of ROC curve area, sensitivity and specificity.

Key Points

• Breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has emerged as a valuable adjunct to mammography (MX).
• Combination DBT/MX demonstrated non-inferior clinical performance to standard two-view MX.
• Combination DBT/MX was superior to two-view MX in recognising benign lesions.
• Combination DBT/MX reduced variability compared with two-view MX.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMed Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231–S240PubMedCrossRef Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231–S240PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869PubMedCrossRef Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869PubMedCrossRef
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 18:2817–2825PubMedCrossRef 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 18:2817–2825PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRef Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRef
8.
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 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRef Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, Andersson I. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012 Jun 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22674710 Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, Andersson I. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012 Jun 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22674710
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 262:788–796PubMedCrossRef 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 262:788–796PubMedCrossRef
11.
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. 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. Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117CrossRef Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113–117CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, Evans DR, Peacock C, Lawinski CP, Douiri A, Wilson R, Whelehan P. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol. 2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22625656 Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, Evans DR, Peacock C, Lawinski CP, Douiri A, Wilson R, Whelehan P. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol. 2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22625656
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (ed) Medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 2006;6142:61425-E Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (ed) Medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 2006;6142:61425-E
15.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 34:232–331 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 34:232–331
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453–471PubMedCrossRef Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453–471PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). © American College of Radiology, Reston American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). © American College of Radiology, Reston
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Pesce LL, Metz CE (2007) Reliable and computationally efficient maximum likelihood estimation of “proper” binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 14:814–829PubMedCrossRef Pesce LL, Metz CE (2007) Reliable and computationally efficient maximum likelihood estimation of “proper” binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 14:814–829PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Obuchowski NA (2007) New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 243:10–12PubMedCrossRef Obuchowski NA (2007) New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 243:10–12PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat 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–S29PubMedCrossRef 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–S29PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Obuchowski NA (1997) Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:13–17PubMed Obuchowski NA (1997) Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:13–17PubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Pater C (2004) Equivalence and noninferiority trials–are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs ? (III). Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 5:8–14PubMedCrossRef Pater C (2004) Equivalence and noninferiority trials–are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs ? (III). Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 5:8–14PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Vecchio S, Albanese A, Vignoli P, Taibi A (2011) A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol 21:1207–1213PubMedCrossRef Vecchio S, Albanese A, Vignoli P, Taibi A (2011) A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol 21:1207–1213PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2010) 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 (2010) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 6:638–644CrossRef Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 6:638–644CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53PubMedCrossRef Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography
verfasst von
Gisella Gennaro
R. Edward Hendrick
Patricia Ruppel
Roberta Chersevani
Cosimo di Maggio
Manuela La Grassa
Luigi Pescarini
Ilaria Polico
Alessandro Proietti
Enrica Baldan
Elisabetta Bezzon
Fabio Pomerri
Pier Carlo Muzzio
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2013
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2649-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2013

European Radiology 3/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

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