Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Slab Thickness: Impact on Reader Performance and Interpretation Time.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) helps reduce recall rates and improve cancer detection compared with two-dimensional (2D) mammography but has a longer interpretation time. Purpose To evaluate the effect of DBT slab thickness and overlap on reader performance and interpretation time in the absence of 1-mm slices. Materials and Methods In this retrospective HIPAA-compliant multireader study of DBT examinations performed between August 2013 and July 2017, four fellowship-trained breast imaging radiologists blinded to final histologic findings interpreted DBT examinations by using a standard protocol (10-mm slabs with 5-mm overlap, 1-mm slices, synthetic 2D mammogram) and an experimental protocol (6-mm slabs with 3-mm overlap, synthetic 2D mammogram) with a crossover design. Among the 122 DBT examinations, 74 mammographic findings had final histologic findings, including 31 masses (26 malignant), 20 groups of calcifications (12 malignant), 18 architectural distortions (15 malignant), and five asymmetries (two malignant). Durations of reader interpretations were recorded. Comparisons were made by using receiver operating characteristic curves for diagnostic performance and paired t tests for continuous variables. Results Among 122 women, mean age was 58.6 years ± 10.1 (standard deviation). For detection of malignancy, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were similar between protocols (range, 0.83-0.94 vs 0.84-0.92; P ≥ .63). Mean DBT interpretation time was shorter with the experimental protocol for three of four readers (reader 1, 5.6 minutes ± 1.7 vs 4.7 minutes ± 1.4 [P < .001]; reader 2, 2.8 minutes ± 1.1 vs 2.3 minutes ± 1.0 [P = .001]; reader 3, 3.6 minutes ± 1.4 vs 3.3 minutes ± 1.3 [P = .17]; reader 4, 4.3 minutes ± 1.0 vs 3.8 minutes ± 1.1 [P ≤ .001]), with 72% reduction in both mean number of images and mean file size (P < .001 for both). Conclusion A digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction protocol that uses 6-mm slabs with 3-mm overlap, without 1-mm slices, had similar diagnostic performance compared with the standard protocol and led to a reduced interpretation time for three of four readers. © RSNA, 2020 See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.

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

[2]  S. Chikarmane,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening. , 2017, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[3]  M. Bertolini,et al.  Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs , 2019, European Radiology.

[4]  Constance D Lehman,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and the Challenges of Implementing an Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Technology Into Clinical Practice. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

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

[6]  Linda Moy,et al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Practice Patterns Following 2011 FDA Approval: A Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists. , 2017, Academic radiology.

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

[8]  C. Balleyguier,et al.  Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: A pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent Computer-Aided Detection (CAD). , 2017, European journal of radiology.

[9]  Luca Braglia,et al.  Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial. , 2018, Radiology.

[10]  Madhavi Raghu,et al.  Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. , 2013, Radiology.

[11]  Seung-Hoon Chae,et al.  Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis , 2018, European Radiology.

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

[13]  Petra Macaskill,et al.  Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis or Mammography: A Meta-analysis of Cancer Detection and Recall , 2018, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.