Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2016

01-06-2016 | Breast

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers

Authors: Won Hwa Kim, Jung Min Chang, Hyeong-Gon Moon, Ann Yi, Hye Ryoung Koo, Hye Mi Gweon, Woo Kyung Moon

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography in women with known breast cancers.

Methods

Three radiologists independently reviewed image sets of 172 patients with 184 cancers; mammography alone, DBT plus mammography and MRI plus mammography, and scored for cancer probability using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC), which allows diagnostic performance estimation using single lesion as a statistical unit in a cancer-only population, was used. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared using the McNemar and Fisher-exact tests.

Results

The JAFROC figures of merit (FOMs) was lower in DBT plus mammography (0.937) than MRI plus mammography (0.978, P = 0.0006) but higher than mammography alone (0.900, P = 0 .0013). The sensitivity was lower in DBT plus mammography (88.2 %) than MRI plus mammography (97.8 %) but higher than mammography alone (78.3 %, both P < 0 .0001). The PPV was significantly higher in DBT plus mammography (93.3 %) than MRI plus mammography (89.6 %, P = 0 .0282).

Conclusions

DBT provided lower diagnostic performance than MRI as an adjunctive imaging to mammography. However, DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography and higher PPV than MRI.

Key Points

• Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus mammography was compared with MRI plus mammography.
• DBT had lower sensitivity and higher PPV than MRI.
• DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Weinstein S, Rosen M (2010) Breast MR imaging: current indications and advanced imaging techniques. Radiol Clin N Am 48:1013–1042CrossRefPubMed
3.
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849CrossRefPubMed
4.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492CrossRefPubMed
5.
Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M (2013) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg 257:249–255CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476CrossRefPubMed
7.
Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220:13–30CrossRefPubMed
8.
Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591CrossRefPubMed
11.
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRefPubMed
12.
Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O et al (2015) Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 274:772–780CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMed
14.
Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M et al (2014) Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Anticancer Res 34:1219–1225PubMed
15.
D'Orsi CJBL, Berg WA et al (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
16.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266:743–751CrossRefPubMed
17.
Obuchowski NA, Mazzone PJ, Dachman AH (2010) Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection. Eur Radiol 20:584–594CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110CrossRefPubMed
19.
Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J (1991) Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis—correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324:1–8CrossRefPubMed
20.
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
22.
Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to characterize MRI-detected additional lesions unidentified at targeted ultrasound in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Eur Radiol 25:2673–2681CrossRefPubMed
23.
Clauser P, Carbonaro LA, Pancot M et al (2015) Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-015-3720-5
24.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRefPubMed
25.
Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700CrossRefPubMed
26.
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113CrossRefPubMed
27.
Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589CrossRefPubMed
29.
Gur D, Rockette HE (2008) Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues. Acad Radiol 15:1312–1315CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers
Authors
Won Hwa Kim
Jung Min Chang
Hyeong-Gon Moon
Ann Yi
Hye Ryoung Koo
Hye Mi Gweon
Woo Kyung Moon
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3998-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

European Radiology 6/2016 Go to the issue

Urogenital

Using intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging to study the renal pathophysiological process of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in rats: Comparison with conventional DWI and arterial spin labelling

Breast

Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: A feasibility study

Magnetic Resonance

A comparison of multi-echo spin-echo and triple-echo steady-state T2 mapping for in vivo evaluation of articular cartilage

Paediatric

Association between renal cystic lesions and bilateral Wilms’ tumours

Musculoskeletal

Scoring haemophilic arthropathy on X-rays: improving inter- and intra-observer reliability and agreement using a consensus atlas

Oncology

Comparison of contrast-enhanced modified T1-weighted 3D TSE black-blood and 3D MP-RAGE sequences for the detection of cerebral metastases and brain tumours