Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography versus tomosynthesis: effect of radiologists' experience

Purpose: To investigate whether readers' experience affects performance in a study comparing 2D digital mammography (2D) with 2-view (CC and MLO) or 1-view (MLO) tomosynthesis. Materials and Methods: One-hundred-thirty 2D cases were collected from screening assessment and referral clinics; 64 of the cases had verified abnormalities and the remaining were confirmed normal. Two-view tomosynthesis images were obtained from the same patients. Ten accredited readers (5 with ≥ 10 years experience in mammography and 5 with < 10 years) classified the cases in terms of malignancy (rate 0-5), and recall (yes/no), for both modalities. A second experiment was performed with the same cases, with 10 other readers (again 5 experienced / 5 less experienced), but using 2D and 1-view tomosynthesis as the two modalities. The multi-reader-multi-case ROC method was applied and the significance of diagnostic accuracy difference of 2D vs tomosynthesis was calculated, as a function of experience and for each experiment. Recall rate (RR) on malignant and benign cases was also calculated, along with reading time. Results: No significant difference was reached between 2D and 2-view tomosynthesis for experienced readers (pvalue= 0.25); for less experienced readers the p-value was significant (0.03). No significant difference was found between 2D and 1-view tomosynthesis, independent of readers' experience. RR for benign cases decreased for tomosynthesis (for booth 1- and 2-view), independent of experience. Average reading time per case was 79 s (range 65- 91 s) and 134 s (range 119-158 s) for experienced readers; 56 s (range 46-67 s) and 115s (range 97-142 s) for nonexperienced, for 2D and 2-view tomosynthesis respectively. Reading time was 74 s (range 43-98 s) and 99 s (range 73- 117 s) for experienced readers; 74 s (range 62-85 s) and 94 s (range 82-137 s) for non-experienced, for 2D and 1-view tomosynthesis respectively. Conclusions: For experienced readers, there is no evidence of improved diagnostic accuracy when using 2-view or 1- view tomosynthesis, while less experienced readers perform better with 2-view tomosynthesis than 2D images. Tomosynthesis reduces the number of recall of benign cases, without hindering cancer detection.

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

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

[3]  Andrew P. Smith,et al.  Clinical Performance of Breast Tomosynthesis as a Function of Radiologist Experience Level , 2008, Digital Mammography / IWDM.

[4]  R. Swensson Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

[5]  Björn Cederström,et al.  Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography. , 2006, Medical physics.

[6]  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.

[7]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Ieee Transactions on Image Processing: to Appear Globally Convergent Algorithms for Maximum a Posteriori Transmission Tomography , 2022 .

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

[9]  Björn Cederström,et al.  AEC for scanning digital mammography based on variation of scan velocity. , 2005, Medical physics.

[10]  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.

[11]  Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis in Medical Imaging , 2008 .

[12]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[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]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. , 2003, JAMA.

[15]  Björn Cederström,et al.  Physical characterization of a scanning photon counting digital mammography system based on Si-strip detectors. , 2007, Medical physics.

[16]  A. Burgess Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. , 1995, Medical physics.

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