European Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1545–1553

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study

  • 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
Breast

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5

Cite this article as:
Gennaro, G., Toledano, A., di Maggio, C. et al. Eur Radiol (2010) 20: 1545. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5

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.

Keywords

Digital breast tomosynthesisDigital mammographyROC analysisClinical performanceNon-inferiority

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gisella Gennaro
    • 1
  • Alicia Toledano
    • 2
  • Cosimo di Maggio
    • 3
  • Enrica Baldan
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Bezzon
    • 1
  • Manuela La Grassa
    • 4
  • Luigi Pescarini
    • 1
    • 3
  • Ilaria Polico
    • 1
  • Alessandro Proietti
    • 1
  • Aida Toffoli
    • 1
  • Pier Carlo Muzzio
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyVenetian Oncological Institute (IOV), IRCCSPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Statistics Collaborative Inc.WashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Oncological and Surgical SciencesPadua UniversityPaduaItaly
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyAviano Oncological Reference Center (CRO), IRCCSAviano (Pordenone)Italy
  5. 5.Department of Medical Diagnostic SciencesPadua UniversityPaduaItaly