Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 402–409 | Cite as

Effect of radiologists’ experience on breast cancer detection and localization using digital breast tomosynthesis

  • Maram M. AlakhrasEmail author
  • Patrick C. Brennan
  • Mary Rickard
  • Roger Bourne
  • Claudia Mello-Thoms
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

Addition of DBT to DM significantly improves radiologists’ diagnostic performance whether or not they have prior DBT experience.

Key points

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 radiologistsperformance regardless of prior DBT experience

High-volume radiologists with different DBT experience levels performed similarly on DM + DBT

Keywords

Digital breast tomosynthesis Digital mammography Breast cancer Diagnostic performance Radiologists’ experience 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. Ca-a Cancer J Clin 55:74–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Elmore J, Armstrong K, Lehmann C, Fletcher S (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen H-H et al (2002) The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 95:458–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pisano ED (2006) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 355:1773–1783Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vernacchia FS, Pena ZG (2009) Digital Mammography: Its Impact on Recall Rates and Cancer Detection Rates in a Small Community-Based Radiology Practice. Am J Roentgenol 193:582–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    David G (2011) Tomosynthesis-Based Imaging of the Breast. Acad Radiol 18:1203–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital Tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch M et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and Classification of Calcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2D Digital Mammography: A Comparison. Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gennaro G, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, Pescarini L, di Maggio C (2008) Clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: Preliminary results. Digit Mammogr Proc 5116:477–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Svane G, Azavedo E, Lindman K et al (2011) Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Acta Radiol 52:134–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study. Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L (2008) Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. Digit Mammogr Proc 5116:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:1074–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, Muller SH, Rutgers EJT, Gilhuijs KGA (2008) The sensitivity of breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography in the detection of breast cancer in patients referred to an outpatient breast clinic, a prospective analysis. Ejc Suppl 6:98–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL et al (2013) Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:291–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ et al (2013) Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:226–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology 267:47–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 262:788–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: A pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 30.
    Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) (2011) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturer's AssociationGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chakraborty D. Dev Chakraborty's FROC (2005). Available via http://www.devchakraborty.com. Accessed 6 January 2014
  32. 32.
    Motulsky H. GraphPad Prism Version 5.0 Statistics Guide (2007). Available via www.graphpad.com. Accessed 2 January 2014
  33. 33.
    Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A (2003) Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading–Oslo I study. Radiology 229:877–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maram M. Alakhras
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick C. Brennan
    • 1
  • Mary Rickard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Roger Bourne
    • 1
  • Claudia Mello-Thoms
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Medical Image Perception and Optimization Group (MIOPeG)Faculty of Health Sciences The University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Sydney Breast ClinicSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical Informatics and Department of RadiologyUniversity of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations