Abstract
Objective
To assess if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is at least equal to digital spot compression view (DSCV).
Methods
Following institutional approval and written informed consent, both DBT and DSCV were obtained in women with a screening abnormality. The diagnostic accuracy of DBT and DSCV was evaluated by two radiologists of varying experience (Reader1 and Reader2).
Results
52 consecutive recalled women without calcification (mean age: 51 ± 12 years) underwent DSCV and DBT. Overall sensitivity was equal for both techniques (100% [95% CI, 91–100%] for DBT and 100% [95% CI, 91–100%] for DSCV). Overall specificity was higher for DBT (100% [95%CI, 91–100%]) than for DSCV (94% [95% CI, 91–100%]). Specificity for DSCV was higher for Reader1 (95% [95% CI, 91–100%]). Reader2 had lower values of specificity (92% [95% CI, 90–92%]). On DSCV, three and two false positives were recorded by Reader2 and Reader1, respectively. Overall, the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for DBT (AUC = 1) than for DSCV (AUC = 0.963). The mean difference between the two techniques was not significantly different (P = 0.43).
Conclusion
In this dataset, diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis is at least equal to that of digital spot compression.
Key Points
• Digital spot compression views (DSCVs) are often needed in breast screening programmes.
• Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) now offers an alternative to DSCV
• In recalls without calcification, DBT was at least equally accurate as DSCVs
• DBT has a lower mean glandular dose than DSCVs
• Thus DBT has the potential to help reduce the recall rate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Minog H, Tennant JC, Youker JE (1968) Coning and breast compression: an aid in mammographic diagnosis. Radiology 91:379–380
Berkowitz JE, Gatewood OM, Gayler BW (1989) Equivocal mammographic findings: evaluation with spot compression. Radiology 171:369–371
Sickles EA (1989) Combining spot-compression and other special views to maximize mammographic information. Radiology 173:571
Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Dershaw DD, Schreer I (2001) Mammography. In: Diagnostic breast imaging: mammography, sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and interventional procedures, 2nd enlarged and revised edn. Thieme, Stuttgart New York, pp 14–83.
Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Cohen MA (2008) Finding early invasive breast cancers: a practical approach. Radiology 248:61–76
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591
Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553
Giess CS, Keating DM, Osborne MP, Ng YY, Rosenblatt R (1998) Retroareolar breast carcinoma: clinical, imaging, and histopathologic features. Radiology 207:669–673
Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324
Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231–S240
European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services. http://www.euref.org. Accessed May 17, 2011.
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 56:453–471
Cavagnetto F, Bampi R, Calabrese M, Orlando B, Villa A, Taccini G (2011) Comparison of dose in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Poster at ECR 2011. doi:10.1594/ecr2011/C-1997
Cavagnetto F, Bampi R, Calabrese M, Chiesa F, Taccini G (2011) The use of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) in digital breast tomosynthesis. Poster at ECR 2011. doi:10.1594/ecr2011/C-1963
American College of Radiology (2003) BI-RADS: mammography, 4th edn. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston
American College of Radiology (2003) BI-RADS: ultrasound, 1st edn. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, USA
Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W172–176
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553
Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tagliafico, A., Astengo, D., Cavagnetto, F. et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22, 539–544 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2305-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2305-1