Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
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.
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).
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.
• 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.
- Niklason, LT, Christian, BT, Niklason, LE (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205: pp. 399-406
- Park, JM, Franken, EA, Garg, M, Fajardo, LL, Niklason, LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27: pp. S231-S240 CrossRef
- Rafferty, E (2007) Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin N Am 45: pp. 831-843 CrossRef
- Good, WF, Abrams, GS, Catullo, VJ (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190: pp. 865-869 CrossRef
- Andersson, I, Ikeda, DM, Zackrisson, S (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: pp. 2817-2825 CrossRef
- Gur, D, Abrams, GS, Chough, DM (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193: pp. 586-591 CrossRef
- Teertstra, HJ, Loo, CE, Bosch, MAAJ (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 20: pp. 16-24 CrossRef
- Gennaro, G, Toledano, A, Maggio, C (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20: pp. 1545-1553 CrossRef
- 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
- 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: pp. 788-796 CrossRef
- Gur, D, Bandos, AI, Rockette, HE (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. Am J Roentgenol 196: pp. 737-741 CrossRef
- Svahn, T, Andersson, I, Chakraborty, D (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: pp. 113-117 CrossRef
- 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
- 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
- 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: pp. 232-331
- Dance, DR, Young, KC, 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: pp. 453-471 CrossRef
- Breast imaging reporting and data system Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). © American College of Radiology, Reston
- Pesce, LL, Metz, CE (2007) Reliable and computationally efficient maximum likelihood estimation of “proper” binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 14: pp. 814-829 CrossRef
- Obuchowski, NA (2007) New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 243: pp. 10-12 CrossRef
- 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: pp. S22-S29 CrossRef
- Obuchowski, NA (1997) Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168: pp. 13-17
- Hillis, SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26: pp. 596-619 CrossRef
- Pater, C (2004) Equivalence and noninferiority trials–are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs ? (III). Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 5: pp. 8-14 CrossRef
- 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: pp. 1207-1213 CrossRef
- Spangler, ML, Zuley, ML, Sumkin, JH (2010) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196: pp. 320-324 CrossRef
- Kopans, D, Gavenonis, S, Halpern, E, Moore, R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 6: pp. 638-644 CrossRef
- Chakrabarti K, Ochs R, Pennello G, Samuelson F. P080003 Hologic Selenia dimension 3D system. FDA executive summary September 2010, http://www.fda.gov.downloads.AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterial/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM226757.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2011
- Gur, D, Bandos, AI, Cohen, CS (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249: pp. 47-53 CrossRef
- Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography
Volume 23, Issue 3 , pp 664-672
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Breast tomosynthesis
- Clinical performance
- Receiver-operating characteristics
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Veneto Institute of Oncology (IOV)–IRCCS, via Gattamelata 64, 35128, Padua, Italy
- 2. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado-Denver, School of Medicine, 12700 E. 19th Avenue, Mail Stop C278, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA
- 3. Innovative Analytics, 161 E. Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI, 49007, USA
- 4. Private Clinical Practice, Gorizia, Italy
- 5. Private Clinical Practice, Padua, Italy
- 6. Oncological Reference Center (CRO)–IRCCS, Aviano, (Pordenone), Italy