nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.09.2013 | Breast

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study

verfasst von: Fabienne Thibault, Clarisse Dromain, Catherine Breucq, Corinne S. Balleyguier, Caroline Malhaire, Luc Steyaert, Anne Tardivon, Enrica Baldan, Harir Drevon

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 9/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of single-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) with that of dual-view mammography (MX); to assess the benefit of adding the craniocaudal (CC) mammographic view to BT, and of adding BT to MX plus breast ultrasound, considered to be the reference work-up.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-five consenting patients with unresolved mammographic and/or ultrasound findings or breast symptoms underwent conventional work-up plus mediolateral oblique-view BT of the affected breast. The final study set in 130 patients resulted in 55 malignant and 76 benign and normal cases. Seven breast radiologists rated the cases through five sequential techniques using a BIRADS-based scale: MX, MX + ultrasound, MX + ultrasound + BT, BT, BT + MX(CC). Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed and performance of the techniques was assessed from the areas under ROC curves. The performance of BT and of BT + MX(CC) was tested versus MX; the performance of MX + ultrasound + BT tested versus MX + ultrasound.

Results

Tomosynthesis was found to be non-inferior to mammography. BT + MX(CC) did not appear to be superior to MX, and MX + ultrasound + BT not superior to MX + ultrasound.

Conclusions

Overall, none of the five techniques tested outperformed the others. Further clinical studies are needed to clarify the role of BT as a substitute for traditional work-up in the diagnostic environment.

Key Points

• Digital breast tomosynthesis is a new adjunct to mammography and breast ultrasound.

• We compared the diagnostic performance of these investigations in an experimental observer study.

• Single-view breast tomosynthesis was confirmed as non-inferior to dual-view mammography.

• None of the investigations (or combinations) tested outperformed the others.

• Further prospective studies are needed to clarify precise role of tomosynthesis for diagnostic application.

Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMed

Diekmann F, Bick U (2011) Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32:281–287PubMedCrossRef

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 189:616–623PubMedCrossRef

Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869PubMedCrossRef

Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef

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 196:737–741PubMedCrossRef

Rafferty E, Park J, Philpotts L 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 266:104–113PubMedCrossRef

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

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

10.

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

11.

Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2009) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRef

12.

Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529PubMedCrossRef

13.

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. European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 61–104

14.

Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans DB (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn M, Hsieh J (eds) Proceedings of SPIE—medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging, vol 6142. International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), Bellingham, p 61425-E

15.

Wu T, Moore R, Rafferty E, Kopans D (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647PubMedCrossRef

16.

Zhang YCH-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 33:3781–3795PubMedCrossRef

17.

Gonen M (2007) Analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves with SAS®. SAS Institute, Cary

18.

Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247PubMedCrossRef

19.

Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast 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

20.

Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 5:e1074–e1082CrossRef

21.

Svane G, Azavedo E, Lindman K et al (2011) Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Acta Radiol 52:134–142PubMedCrossRef

22.

Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672PubMedCrossRef

23.

U.S. National Institutes of Health (2012) ClinicalTrials.gov U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda. Available via www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed 09 Jan 2013

24.

Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben E et al (2011) Reading time of FFDM and Tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013

25.

Rose L, Ice M, Sullivan Nordmann A, Sexton RJ, Song R (2012) A comparison of recall rates between full field digital mammography (FFDM) and full field digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a community setting. RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2012.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013

26.

Haas B, Bihari Kalra V, Raghu M, Philpotts L (2012) Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis compared to conventional digital mammography for breast cancer screening. RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2012.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013

27.

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 267:47–56PubMedCrossRef

28.

Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Di Maggio C et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis: radiologists’ learning process. RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2012.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013

Titel: Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study
verfasst von: Fabienne Thibault
Clarisse Dromain
Catherine Breucq
Corinne S. Balleyguier
Caroline Malhaire
Luc Steyaert
Anne Tardivon
Enrica Baldan
Harir Drevon
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2013
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2863-5

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study