Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications.

OBJECTIVES To assess the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), with a wide scan-angle, compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. METHODS IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective study. We selected 150 FFDM and DBT (50 benign and 50 malignant histologically verified microcalcifications, 50 cases classified as BI-RADS 1). Four radiologists evaluated, in separate sessions and blinded to patients' history and histology, the presence of microcalcifications. Cases with microcalcifications were assessed for visibility, characteristics, and grade of suspicion using BI-RADS categories. Detection rate and diagnostic performance were calculated. Visibility, lesions' characteristics and reading time were analysed. RESULTS Detection rate and visibility were good for both FFDM and DBT, without intra-reader differences (P=0.510). Inter-reader differences were detected (P<0.018). Only two lesions were not detected by any reader on either FFDM or DBT. Diagnostic performance with DBT was as good as that of FFDM, but a significant inter-reader difference was found (P=0.041). High inter-reader variability in the use of the descriptors was found. Reading time for DBT was almost twice that for FFDM (44 and 25s, respectively). CONCLUSION Wide scan-angle DBT enabled the detection and characterization of microcalcifications with no significant differences from FFDM. Inter-reader variability was seen.

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

[2]  Lurdes Orvalho,et al.  Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms. , 2015, Medical physics.

[3]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. , 2015, Radiology.

[4]  N. Houssami,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis might not be the optimal modality for detecting microcalcification. , 2015, Radiology.

[5]  N Houssami,et al.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

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

[7]  N Houssami,et al.  Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience). , 2006, Breast.

[8]  R Holland,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of Oncology.

[9]  I Sechopoulos,et al.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. , 2015, Breast.

[10]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. , 2014, JAMA.

[11]  Yit Yoong Lim,et al.  The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[12]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization. , 2012, Radiology.

[13]  David Gur,et al.  Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[15]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[16]  Andriy I Bandos,et al.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. , 2014, Radiology.

[17]  Sara Gavenonis,et al.  Calcifications in the Breast and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis , 2011, The breast journal.

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

[19]  Kenneth C. Young,et al.  Detection of microcalcification clusters by 2D-mammography and narrow and wide angle digital breast tomosynthesis , 2016, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[20]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[21]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. , 2013, Radiology.

[23]  Manuela Durando,et al.  Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study , 2014, European Radiology.

[24]  Ioannis Sechopoulos,et al.  Optimization of the acquisition geometry in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. , 2009, Medical physics.

[25]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[26]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. , 2011, Radiology.

[27]  Pragya A. Dang,et al.  Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. , 2014, Radiology.

[28]  Consumer Protection,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[29]  I. Sechopoulos.  A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. , 2013, Medical physics.

[30]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study , 2015, European Radiology.

[31]  P. Tan,et al.  Intermediate to highly suspicious calcification in breast lesions: a radio-pathologic correlation , 2008, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[32]  Federica Zanca,et al.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. , 2012, Radiology.

[33]  M Ruschin,et al.  Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: a 4AFC human observer study. , 2012, Medical physics.

[34]  Hilde Bosmans,et al.  Comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography using a hybrid performance test , 2015, Physics in Medicine and Biology.