Effect of radiologists’ experience on breast cancer detection and localization using digital breast tomosynthesis
- 684 Downloads
The objectives are To to compare the diagnostic performance of combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) with that of DM alone, as a function of radiologists’ experience with DBT.
Ethical committee approval was obtained. Fifty cases (27 cancer, 23 normal), each containing both digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images, were reviewed by 26 radiologists, divided into three groups according to level of experience with DBT (none, workshop experience, and clinical experience). The radiologists’ diagnostic performance using DM was compared with that using DM + DBT, and evaluated by area under receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC), jackknife free-response receiver-operator characteristics figure of metric (JAFROC FOM), sensitivity, location sensitivity, and specificity.
For all readers combined, performance using DM + DBT was significantly higher than for DM alone by both AUC (0.788 vs 0.681, p < 0.001) and JAFROC FOM (0.745 vs 0.621, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for readers with no DBT experience (AUC 0.775 vs 0.682, p = 0.004; JAFROC FOM 0.695 vs 0.603, p = 0.016) and with clinical DBT experience (AUC 0.789 vs 0.681, p = 0.042; and JAFROC FOM 0.764 vs 0.632, p = 0.031).
Addition of DBT to DM significantly improves radiologists’ diagnostic performance whether or not they have prior DBT experience.
• Adding DBT to DM increased the number of detected cancers
• DBT + DM led to more accurate localization of breast cancers than DM
• Addition of DBT improved radiologists’ performance regardless of prior DBT experience
• High-volume radiologists with different DBT experience levels performed similarly on DM + DBT
KeywordsDigital breast tomosynthesis Digital mammography Breast cancer Diagnostic performance Radiologists’ experience
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous funding support provided by Australia’s National Breast Cancer Foundation under the Novel Concept Award Scheme. The authors thank Sydney Breast Clinic for providing the images, Hologic for their efforts in setting up the workstations and Jordan University of Science and Technology for their sponsorship.
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Maram Mustafa Alakhras. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: Retrospective, Diagnostic study, Performed at one institution.
- 2.Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA: A Cancer J Clin 61:69–90Google Scholar
- 5.Pisano ED (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 355:1773–1783Google Scholar
- 26.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 139:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Maxwell AJ, Ridley NT, Rubin G, Wallis MG, Gilbert FJ, Michell MJ The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification. Clinical Radiology 64:624-627Google Scholar
- 29.American College of Radiology (2003) American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va:American College of RadiologyGoogle Scholar
- 30.Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) (2011) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturer's AssociationGoogle Scholar
- 31.Chakraborty D. Dev Chakraborty's FROC (2005). Available via http://www.devchakraborty.com. Accessed 6 January 2014
- 32.Motulsky H. GraphPad Prism Version 5.0 Statistics Guide (2007). Available via www.graphpad.com. Accessed 2 January 2014