Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Full-Field Digital Mammography? A Multireader, Multicase Study of Wide-Angle Tomosynthesis.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis whether two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can replace full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast cancer detection. SUBJECTS AND METHODS In a multireader multicase study, bilateral two-view FFDM and bilateral two-view wide-angle DBT images were independently viewed for breast cancer detection in two reading sessions separated by more than 1 month. From a pool of 764 patients undergoing screening and diagnostic mammography, 330 patient-cases were selected. The endpoints were the mean ROC AUC for the reader per breast (breast level), ROC AUC per patient (subject level), noncancer recall rates, sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS Twenty-nine of 31 readers performed better with DBT than FFDM regardless of breast density. There was a statistically significant improvement in readers' mean diagnostic accuracy with DBT. The subject-level AUC increased from 0.765 (standard error [SE], 0.027) for FFDM to 0.835 (SE, 0.027) for DBT (p = 0.002). Breast-level AUC increased from 0.818 (SE, 0.019) for FFDM to 0.861 (SE, 0.019) for DBT (p = 0.011). The noncancer recall rate per patient was reduced by 19% with DBT (p < 0.001). Masses and architectural distortions were detected more with DBT (p < 0.001); calcifications trended lower (p = 0.136). Accuracy for detection of invasive cancers was significantly greater with DBT (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Reader performance in breast cancer detection is significantly higher with wide-angle two-view DBT independent of FFDM, verifying the robustness of DBT as a sole view. However, results of perception studies in the vision sciences support the inclusion of an overview image.

[1]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[2]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance of clustered microcalcification detection on breast phantom images acquired with an experimental system using variable scan angles, angular increments, and number of projection views. , 2014, Radiology.

[3]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A Case for Wide-Angle Breast Tomosynthesis. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[4]  Lara A Hardesty,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: a survey of physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[5]  Colleen H. Neal,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Heang-Ping Chan,et al.  Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[7]  David Gur,et al.  Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[8]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. , 2006, Radiology.

[9]  Andriy I. Bandos,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. , 2013, Radiology.

[10]  Lena Osterhagen,et al.  Multiple Imputation For Nonresponse In Surveys , 2016 .

[11]  Warwick B. Lee,et al.  How mammographic breast density affects radiologists' visual search patterns. , 2014, Academic radiology.

[12]  Trafton Drew,et al.  Scanners and drillers: characterizing expert visual search through volumetric images. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[13]  I. Sechopoulos A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. , 2013, Medical physics.

[14]  Y. Durum,et al.  Review and management of breast lesions detected with breast tomosynthesis but not visible on mammography and ultrasonography , 2017, Acta radiologica.

[15]  E. Halpern,et al.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. , 2013, Radiology.

[16]  Maria Bernathova,et al.  Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[17]  H L Kundel,et al.  A visual concept shapes image perception. , 1983, Radiology.

[18]  D B Kopans,et al.  Recent issues in breast cancer detection and the premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a US system for breast lesion evaluation: what happened to science? , 1997, Radiology.

[19]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  A comparison of the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz and Obuchowski–Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: An anova approach with dependent observations , 1995 .

[21]  E. Sickles Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. , 1991, Radiology.

[22]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings , 2008, European Radiology.

[23]  Gillian D Sanders,et al.  Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. , 2015, JAMA.

[24]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis. , 2008, Medical physics.

[25]  Linda Moy,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Practice Patterns Following 2011 FDA Approval: A Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists. , 2017, Academic radiology.

[26]  I Andersson,et al.  Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography-a side-by-side review of discrepant cases. , 2014, The British journal of radiology.

[27]  Karla K. Evans,et al.  The gist of the abnormal: Above-chance medical decision making in the blink of an eye , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[28]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Nonparametric analysis of clustered ROC curve data. , 1997, Biometrics.