Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic population.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOverall 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%.ConclusionClinical 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.

[1]  Elizabeth A Rafferty,et al.  Digital mammography: novel applications. , 2007, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[2]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  N. Obuchowski.  New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. , 2007, Radiology.

[4]  Bo Zhao,et al.  A computer simulation platform for the optimization of a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2007, Medical physics.

[5]  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.

[6]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Computerized Mass Detection for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2006 .

[7]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Multireader receiver operating characteristic studies: a comparison of study designs. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[8]  Martin J. Yaffe,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis geometry calibration , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[9]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[10]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  C. Metz,et al.  "Proper" Binormal ROC Curves: Theory and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation. , 1999, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[12]  Gisella Gennaro,et al.  Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography , 2006, European Radiology.

[13]  Mahadevappa Mahesh,et al.  AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[14]  Spencer Gunn,et al.  Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anode-filter combinations. , 2008, Medical physics.

[15]  S. Hillis.  A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  M Ruschin,et al.  Dose reduction and its influence on diagnostic accuracy and radiation risk in digital mammography: an observer performance study using an anthropomorphic breast phantom. , 2007, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[18]  Andrew P. Smith,et al.  Clinical Performance of Breast Tomosynthesis as a Function of Radiologist Experience Level , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[19]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Three-dimensional linear system analysis for breast tomosynthesis. , 2008, Medical physics.

[21]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[22]  D. DeLong,et al.  Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. , 2007, Radiology.

[23]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. , 2008, Medical physics.

[24]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Scatter radiation in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2007, Medical physics.

[25]  Edward F. Bullard,et al.  Mean glandular dose estimation using MCNPX for a digital breast tomosynthesis system with tungsten/aluminum and tungsten/aluminum+silver x-ray anode-filter combinations. , 2008, Medical physics.

[26]  R A Schmidt,et al.  Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study. , 2008, Medical physics.

[27]  Daniel B. Kopans,et al.  Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[28]  Aruna A. Vedula,et al.  A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. , 2006, Medical physics.

[29]  J. Dobbins.  Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. , 2009, Medical physics.

[30]  D. Kopans,et al.  Voting strategy for artifact reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[31]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  A contaminated binormal model for ROC data , 2000 .

[32]  Tao Wu,et al.  A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. , 2004, Medical physics.

[33]  R. L. Birdwell.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Pilot Observer Study , 2009 .

[34]  Lorenzo L. Pesce,et al.  Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[35]  Laurie L Fajardo,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. , 2007, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[36]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  Digital mammography. , 2005, Radiology.

[37]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[38]  In search for the third dimension: from radiostereoscopy to three-dimensional imaging. , 2002 .

[39]  N. Obuchowski.  Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[40]  J. Baker,et al.  A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. , 2008, Medical physics.

[41]  Martin Spahn,et al.  Flat detectors and their clinical applications , 2005, European Radiology.

[42]  K S Berbaum,et al.  A contaminated binormal model for ROC data: Part II. A formal model. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[43]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2006, Medical physics.

[44]  D. Vanel.  The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.