Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 3/2014

01-03-2014 | Breast

Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis

Authors: Junqiang Lei, Pin Yang, Li Zhang, Yinzhong Wang, Kehu Yang

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) for benign and malignant lesions in breasts.

Methods

Document retrieval was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, etc., from 1950 to June 2013. Metadisc1.4 software was used to analyse the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and positive and negative likelihood ratio. The heterogeneity was assessed using forest plots and the inconsistency index (I2). Before statistical comparison, the area under (AUC) the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) of two different diagnostic methods was calculated respectively.

Results

A total of seven studies involving 2,014 patients and 2,666 breast lesions were included. Compared with the gold standard (histological results), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of DBT were 90.0 % and 79.0 %, and for DM they were 89.0 % and 72.0 %, respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of DBT and DM was 3.50 and 2.83; the pooled negative likelihood ratio of DBT and DM was 15 % and 18 %; the pooled DOR for DBT and DM was 26.04 and 16.24, respectively.

Conclusions

Digital breast tomosynthesis has a higher sensitivity and specificity in breast diagnosis than digital mammography.

Key Points

Digital breast tomosynthesis has high sensitivity and specificity in breast diagnosis.
DBT appears to have superior diagnostic accuracy relative to digital mammography.
DBT images were captured at a lower dose than 2D images.
DBT displays abnormal features of lesions more clearly than DM.
Digital breast tomosynthesis could become the first choice for assessing breast lesions.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Chow LW, Yip AY, Ng EL (2012) Prevention of oncological diseases: primary and secondary prevention. Int J Biol Markers 27:e337–e343PubMedCrossRef Chow LW, Yip AY, Ng EL (2012) Prevention of oncological diseases: primary and secondary prevention. Int J Biol Markers 27:e337–e343PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference 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 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
4.
go back to reference Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. Am J Roentgenol 195:5CrossRef Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. Am J Roentgenol 195:5CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRef Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiogr Suppl 1:S231–S240CrossRef Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiogr Suppl 1:S231–S240CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRef Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16–24PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Calabrese M et al (2012) One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22:539–544PubMedCrossRef Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Calabrese M et al (2012) One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 22:539–544PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Chan HP, Wei J, Zhang Y et al (2008) Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. Med Phys 35:4087–4095PubMedCrossRef Chan HP, Wei J, Zhang Y et al (2008) Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. Med Phys 35:4087–4095PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869CrossRef Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol 190:865–869CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ (1997) The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ Brit Med J 315:980–988CrossRef Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ (1997) The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. BMJ Brit Med J 315:980–988CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Tian JH (2010) Systematic review of Diagnosis text accuracy. In: Yang KH (ed) System evaluation Guideline. People's Medical Publishing House, Beijin, pp 191–195 Tian JH (2010) Systematic review of Diagnosis text accuracy. In: Yang KH (ed) System evaluation Guideline. People's Medical Publishing House, Beijin, pp 191–195
15.
go back to reference Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536PubMedCrossRef Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Zhang TS, Zhong WZ (2008) Meta-DiSc software in meta-analysis of diagnostic test. J Evid Based Med 8:97–108 Zhang TS, Zhong WZ (2008) Meta-DiSc software in meta-analysis of diagnostic test. J Evid Based Med 8:97–108
18.
19.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ Brit Med J 327:557–560CrossRef Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ Brit Med J 327:557–560CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bowden J, Tierney JF et al (2011) Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:41PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Bowden J, Tierney JF et al (2011) Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:41PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Liu PL, Tang SS (2011) Contrast enhanced ultrasound and contrast enhanced CT for diagnosis of focal pancreas lesions: a meta-analysis. Chin J Med Image Technol 27:2265–2269 Liu PL, Tang SS (2011) Contrast enhanced ultrasound and contrast enhanced CT for diagnosis of focal pancreas lesions: a meta-analysis. Chin J Med Image Technol 27:2265–2269
22.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Egger M (2001) Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1046–1055PubMedCrossRef Sterne JA, Egger M (2001) Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1046–1055PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference 23 Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org 23 Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.​cochrane-handbook.​org
24.
go back to reference Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981PubMedCrossRef Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:e1074–e1082PubMedCrossRef Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:e1074–e1082PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Svane G, Azavedo E, Lindman K et al (2011) Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Acta Radiol 52:134–142PubMedCrossRef Svane G, Azavedo E, Lindman K et al (2011) Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Acta Radiol 52:134–142PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Tejerina Bernal A, Rabadan Doreste F et al (2012) Breast imaging: how we manage diagnostic technology at a multidisciplinary breast center. J Oncol 2012:213421PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Tejerina Bernal A, Rabadan Doreste F et al (2012) Breast imaging: how we manage diagnostic technology at a multidisciplinary breast center. J Oncol 2012:213421PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Smith A (2005) Full-field breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Manag 27:25–31 Smith A (2005) Full-field breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Manag 27:25–31
30.
31.
go back to reference Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623PubMedCrossRef Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616–623PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247PubMedCrossRef Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240–247PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference 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 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
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis
Authors
Junqiang Lei
Pin Yang
Li Zhang
Yinzhong Wang
Kehu Yang
Publication date
01-03-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3012-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

European Radiology 3/2014 Go to the issue