Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this article is to compare the ability of digital breast tomosynthesis and full field digital mammography (FFDM) to detect and characterize calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred paired examinations were performed utilizing FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis. Twenty biopsy-proven cancers, 40 biopsy-proven benign calcifications, and 40 randomly selected negative screening studies were retrospectively reviewed by five radiologists in a crossed multireader multimodal observer performance study. Data collected included the presence of calcifications and forced BI-RADS scores. Receiver operator curve analysis using BI-RADS was performed. RESULTS Overall calcification detection sensitivity was higher for FFDM (84% [95% CI, 79-88%]) than for digital breast tomosynthesis (75% [95% CI, 70-80%]). [corrected] In the cancer cohort, 75 (76%) of 99 interpretations identified calcification in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score less than or equal to 2 was rendered in three (4%) and nine (12%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. In the benign cohort, 123 (62%) of 200 interpretations identified calcifications in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 was assigned in 105 (85%) and 93 (76%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. There was no significant difference in the nonparametric computed area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) using the BI-RADS scores (FFDM, AUC = 0.76 and SD = 0.03; digital breast tomosynthesis, AUC = 0.72 and SD = 0.04 [p = 0.1277]). CONCLUSION In this small data set, FFDM appears to be slightly more sensitive than digital breast tomosynthesis for the detection of calcification. However, diagnostic performance as measured by area under the curve using BI-RADS was not significantly different. With improvements in processing algorithms and display, digital breast tomosynthesis could potentially be improved for this purpose.

[1]  R. Edward Hendrick,et al.  Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography , 2013, European Radiology.

[2]  Giuseppe Rescinito,et al.  One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis , 2012, European Radiology.

[3]  M. Tsuboi,et al.  Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening. , 2004, Radiation medicine.

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

[5]  R. Birdwell.  The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. , 2009, Radiology.

[6]  H Bosmans,et al.  Measurements of system sharpness for two digital breast tomosynthesis systems , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[8]  David Gur,et al.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[9]  H. Bosmans,et al.  The simulation of 3D microcalcification clusters in 2D digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. , 2011, Medical physics.

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

[11]  Stefano Ciatto,et al.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Niall Phelan,et al.  Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  E. Samei,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a concise overview , 2013 .

[15]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Digital mammography and tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. , 2011, Expert opinion on medical diagnostics.

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

[17]  M. Elter,et al.  CADx of mammographic masses and clustered microcalcifications: a review. , 2009, Medical physics.

[18]  Lonie R. Salkowski,et al.  Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. , 2007, Radiology.

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

[20]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[22]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study. , 2009, Academic radiology.

[23]  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.