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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2013

01-08-2013 | Breast

Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis

Authors: Gisella Gennaro, R. Edward Hendrick, Alicia Toledano, Jean R. Paquelet, Elisabetta Bezzon, Roberta Chersevani, Cosimo di Maggio, Manuela La Grassa, Luigi Pescarini, Ilaria Polico, Alessandro Proietti, Enrica Baldan, Fabio Pomerri, Pier Carlo Muzzio

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the clinical value of combining one-view mammography (cranio-caudal, CC) with the complementary view tomosynthesis (mediolateral-oblique, MLO) in comparison to standard two-view mammography (MX) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization.

Methods

A free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) experiment was conducted independently by six breast radiologists, obtaining data from 463 breasts of 250 patients. Differences in mean lesion detection fraction (LDF) and mean lesion characterization fraction (LCF) were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare clinical performance of the combination of techniques to standard two-view digital mammography.

Results

The 463 cases (breasts) reviewed included 258 with one to three lesions each, and 205 with no lesions. The 258 cases with lesions included 77 cancers in 68 breasts and 271 benign lesions to give a total of 348 proven lesions. The combination, DBT(MLO)+MX(CC), was superior to MX (CC+MLO) in both lesion detection (LDF) and lesion characterization (LCF) overall and for benign lesions. DBT(MLO)+MX(CC) was non-inferior to two-view MX for malignant lesions.

Conclusions

This study shows that readers’ capabilities in detecting and characterizing breast lesions are improved by combining single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and single-view mammography compared to two-view digital mammography.

Key Points

• Digital breast tomosynthesis is becoming adopted as an adjunct to mammography (MX)
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion detection (overall and benign lesions)
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in cancer detection
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion characterization (overall and benign lesions)
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in characterization of malignant lesions
Literature
1.
Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256PubMedCrossRef
2.
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group: diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
3.
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMedCrossRef
4.
Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancer missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613–617PubMed
6.
Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef
8.
Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010:16–24
9.
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553CrossRef
10.
Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high resolution x-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:78–796CrossRef
11.
Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjørndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529PubMedCrossRef
12.
Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981PubMedCrossRef
13.
Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, Andersson I (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:e1074–82PubMedCrossRef
14.
Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2012) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–72PubMedCrossRef
15.
Obuchowski NA (2005) Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists: ROC analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:364–372PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMed
17.
Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modelling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330PubMedCrossRef
18.
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 196:737–741PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kopans DB (2007) Breast imaging, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 323–342
20.
Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (eds) Medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging. Proc SPIE 6142:61425E
21.
Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647PubMedCrossRef
22.
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
23.
24.
Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619PubMedCrossRef
25.
Chen W, Petrick NA, Sahiner B (2012) Hypothesis testing in noninferiority and equivalence MRMC ROC studies. Acad Radiol 19:1158–1165PubMedCrossRef
26.
Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kopans DB, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 17:638–664PubMedCrossRef
28.
Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis
Authors
Gisella Gennaro
R. Edward Hendrick
Alicia Toledano
Jean R. Paquelet
Elisabetta Bezzon
Roberta Chersevani
Cosimo di Maggio
Manuela La Grassa
Luigi Pescarini
Ilaria Polico
Alessandro Proietti
Enrica Baldan
Fabio Pomerri
Pier Carlo Muzzio
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2831-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2013

European Radiology 8/2013 Go to the issue

Vascular-Interventional

Reference levels and patient doses in interventional cardiology procedures in Greece

Experimental

Reply to Letter to the Editor re: ESUR prostate MR guidelines

Erratum

Erratum to: Intra-individual randomised comparison of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M in patients scheduled for preoperative breast MRI

Magnetic Resonance

Subtractionless first-pass single contrast medium dose peripheral MR angiography using two-point Dixon fat suppression

Chest

Tomosynthesis for the early detection of pulmonary emphysema: diagnostic performance compared with chest radiography, using multidetector computed tomography as reference

Gastrointestinal

Apparent diffusion coefficient modifications in assessing gastro-oesophageal cancer response to neoadjuvant treatment: comparison with tumour regression grade at histology