Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study
- 2.4k Downloads
To compare the clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic population.
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.
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%.
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.
KeywordsDigital breast tomosynthesis Digital mammography ROC analysis Clinical performance Non-inferiority
The authors would like to thank Luc Katz, Francesca Braga, Henri Souchay, Razvan Iordache, and Sylvain Bernard from GE Healthcare for helpful discussion and scientific debate, and Lorenzo Pesce from University of Chicago for his support on ROC fitting models.
A. Toledano (statistician) is consultant for GE Healthcare.
- 1.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 205:399–406PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics (Suppl 1):S231–S240Google Scholar
- 9.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-EGoogle Scholar
- 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 34:331–232Google Scholar
- 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 6510:65103BGoogle Scholar
- 19.Wu T, Moore RH, Kopans DB (2006) Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:1461–1471Google Scholar
- 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 18:2817–2825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L (2008) Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. LNCS 5116:61–66Google Scholar
- 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 61–104Google Scholar
- 31.American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
- 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 80:557–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar