Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography

Background In two-dimensional mammography, a well-known problem is over- and underlying tissue which can either obstruct a lesion or create a false-positive result. Tomosynthesis, with an ability to layer the tissue in the image, has the potential to resolve these issues. Purpose To compare the diagnostic quality, sensitivity and specificity of a single tomosynthesis mammography image and a traditional two-view set of two-dimensional mammograms and to assess the comfort of the two techniques. Material and Methods One hundred and forty-four women, mainly chosen because of suspicious features on standard mammograms (76 malignant), had a single tomosynthesis image taken of one breast using a novel photon counting system. On average, the dose of the tomosynthesis images was 0.63 times that of the two-view images and the compression force during the procedure was halved. The resulting images were viewed by two radiologists and assessed both individually and comparing the two techniques. Results In 56% of the cases the radiologists rated the diagnostic quality of the lesion details higher in the tomosynthesis images than in the conventional images (and in 91% equal or higher), which means there is a statistically significant preference for the tomosynthesis technique. This included the calcifications which were rated as having better quality in 41% of the cases. While sensitivity was slightly higher for traditional mammography the specificity was higher for tomosynthesis. However, neither of these two differences was large enough to be statistically significant. Conclusion The overall accuracy of the two techniques was virtually equal despite the radiologist's very limited experience with tomosynthesis images and vast experience with two-dimensional mammography. As the diagnostic quality of the lesion details in the tomosynthesis images was valued considerably higher this factor should improve with experience. The patients also favored the tomosynthesis examination, rating the comfort of the procedure as much higher than regular mammography which might affect screening attendance.

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

[2]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[3]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[4]  S. Hofvind,et al.  The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result , 2003, Cancer Causes & Control.

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

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

[7]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of a Photon-Counting Tomosynthesis Mammography System , 2006, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[8]  Bo Zhao,et al.  Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system. , 2008, Medical physics.

[9]  Mia A. Papas,et al.  Pain And Discomfort Associated With Mammography Among Urban Low-Income African–American Women , 2005, Journal of Community Health.

[10]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  M. Elwood,et al.  Once is enough--why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme. , 1998, The New Zealand medical journal.

[12]  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.

[13]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[14]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography , 2010, Acta radiologica.

[15]  Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results , 2009, European Radiology.

[16]  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.

[17]  John Eng,et al.  Sample size estimation: a glimpse beyond simple formulas. , 2004, Radiology.

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

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

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

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

[22]  D. Kopans,et al.  Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[23]  L. Brown,et al.  Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion , 2001 .

[24]  Gisella Gennaro,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study , 2010, European Radiology.

[25]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Evaluation of a photon-counting breast tomosynthesis imaging system , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

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