Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer 6/2016

01-11-2016 | Original Article

A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers

Authors: Woo Jung Choi, Hak Hee Kim, Sun Young Lee, Eun Young Chae, Hee Jung Shin, Joo Hee Cha, Byung Ho Son, Sei Hyun Ahn, Young-Wook Choi

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate interobserver agreement in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization, and to evaluate the cancer detection rate of standard two-view FFDM compared to various combinations of DBT.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five women (mean age 59.7; range 50–80 years) with 37 breast cancers who underwent both two-view DBT and two-view FFDM were included. DBT images were obtained using an investigational prototype. We performed interobserver agreement analyses using kappa (k) statistics. The cancer detection rate of various combinations of DBT compared to standard two-view FFDM was estimated using a generalized estimation equation.

Results

There was fair to moderate agreement on detectability (k = 0.59–0.62) in both views of FFDM and DBT, while fair to substantial agreement was found for lesion location (k = 0.52–0.84) and fair to moderate agreement for lesion type (k = 0.46–0.70) and BI-RADS final assessment (k = 0.48–0.69). In generalized estimation equations, standard two-view FFDM was inferior to any combination of DBT. The detection rate ratio was significantly higher in the combined four views of DBT and FFDM compared to standard FFDM (p < 0.046).

Conclusion

Our study showed good agreement in lesion detection and characterization between FFDM and DBT images. Our findings also demonstrated that combining DBT and FFDM is superior in detecting cancer compared to standard FFDM.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91:1724–31.CrossRefPubMed Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer. 2001;91:1724–31.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260:658–63.CrossRefPubMed Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen TH, Yen AM, Cohen A, Tot T, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260:658–63.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Berg WA. Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:895–906.CrossRefPubMed Berg WA. Beyond standard mammographic screening: mammography at age extremes, ultrasound, and MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:895–906.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.CrossRefPubMed Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227–36.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41.CrossRefPubMed Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE. Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2004;230:29–41.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.CrossRefPubMed Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399–406.CrossRefPubMed Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399–406.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, 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. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2817–25.CrossRefPubMed Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, 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. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:2817–25.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1545–53.CrossRefPubMed Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1545–53.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:865–9.CrossRefPubMed Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:865–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:586–91.CrossRefPubMed Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:586–91.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262:788–96.CrossRefPubMed Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262:788–96.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56.CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269:694–700.CrossRefPubMed Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269:694–700.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:1401–8.CrossRefPubMed Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:1401–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104–13.CrossRefPubMed Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104–13.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e1074–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e1074–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Mun HS, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Ruppel PL, Oh HY, et al. Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:1254–9.CrossRefPubMed Mun HS, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Ruppel PL, Oh HY, et al. Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:1254–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, Chersevani R, di Maggio C, La Grassa M, et al. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:664–72.CrossRefPubMed Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, Chersevani R, di Maggio C, La Grassa M, et al. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:664–72.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference American college of radiology. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th. Reston, VA: American college of radiology; 2013. American college of radiology. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th. Reston, VA: American college of radiology; 2013.
22.
go back to reference Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–9.CrossRef Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:571–8.PubMed Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:571–8.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121–30.CrossRefPubMed Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics. 1986;42:121–30.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1298–310.CrossRefPubMed Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1298–310.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271:655–63.CrossRefPubMed Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271:655–63.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology. 2014;271:664–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology. 2014;271:664–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers
Authors
Woo Jung Choi
Hak Hee Kim
Sun Young Lee
Eun Young Chae
Hee Jung Shin
Joo Hee Cha
Byung Ho Son
Sei Hyun Ahn
Young-Wook Choi
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0656-1

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Breast Cancer 6/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine