Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography

ObjectiveTo determine the performance of combined single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view cranio-caudal (CC) mammography (MX) compared with that of standard two-view digital mammography.MethodsA multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) study was conducted, involving six breast radiologists. Two hundred fifty patients underwent bilateral MX and DBT imaging. MX and DBT images with the adjunct of the CC-MX view from 469 breasts were evaluated and rated independently by six readers. Differences in mean areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), mean sensitivity and mean specificity were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess clinical performance.ResultsThe combined technique was found to be non-inferior to standard two-view mammography (MX(CC+MLO)) in mean AUC (difference: +0.021;95 % LCL = −0.011), but was not statistically significant for superiority (P = 0.197). The combined technique had equivalent sensitivity to standard mammography (76.2 % vs. 72.8 %, P = 0.269) and equivalent specificity (84.9 % vs. 83.0 %, P = 0.130). Specificity for benign lesions was significantly higher with the combination of techniques versus mammography (45.6 % vs. 36.8 %, P = 0.002).ConclusionIn this enriched study population, the combination of single-view MLO tomosynthesis plus single-view CC mammography was non-inferior to that of standard two-view digital mammography in terms of ROC curve area, sensitivity and specificity.Key Points• Breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has emerged as a valuable adjunct to mammography (MX).• Combination DBT/MX demonstrated non-inferior clinical performance to standard two-view MX.• Combination DBT/MX was superior to two-view MX in recognising benign lesions.• Combination DBT/MX reduced variability compared with two-view MX.

[1]  S. Vecchio,et al.  A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images , 2011, European Radiology.

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

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

[4]  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.

[5]  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.

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  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.

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

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

[14]  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.

[15]  David Gur,et al.  Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[17]  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.

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

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

[20]  Luisa P. Wallace,et al.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. , 2008, Radiology.

[21]  C P Lawinski,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2012, Clinical radiology.

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

[23]  D. Dance,et al.  Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[25]  T M Svahn,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[26]  C. Pater Equivalence and noninferiority trials – are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs? (III) , 2004, Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine.

[27]  I Andersson,et al.  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. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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