Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-01-2018 | Breast

Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion

Authors: Elizabeth H. Dibble, Ana P. Lourenco, Grayson L. Baird, Robert C. Ward, A. Stanley Maynard, Martha B. Mainiero

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Objectives

To compare interobserver variability (IOV), reader confidence, and sensitivity/specificity in detecting architectural distortion (AD) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

Methods

This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study used a counterbalanced experimental design. We searched radiology reports for AD on screening mammograms from 5 March 2012–27 November 2013. Cases were consensus-reviewed. Controls were selected from demographically matched non-AD examinations. Two radiologists and two fellows blinded to outcomes independently reviewed images from two patient groups in two sessions. Readers recorded presence/absence of AD and confidence level. Agreement and differences in confidence and sensitivity/specificity between DBT versus DM and attendings versus fellows were examined using weighted Kappa and generalised mixed modeling, respectively.

Results

There were 59 AD patients and 59 controls for 1,888 observations (59 × 2 (cases and controls) × 2 breasts × 2 imaging techniques × 4 readers). For all readers, agreement improved with DBT versus DM (0.61 vs. 0.37). Confidence was higher with DBT, p = .001. DBT achieved higher sensitivity (.59 vs. .32), p < .001; specificity remained high (>.90). DBT achieved higher positive likelihood ratio values, smaller negative likelihood ratio values, and larger ROC values.

Conclusions

DBT decreases IOV, increases confidence, and improves sensitivity while maintaining high specificity in detecting AD.

Key points

• Digital breast tomosynthesis decreases interobserver variability in the detection of architectural distortion.

• Digital breast tomosynthesis increases reader confidence in the detection of architectural distortion.

• Digital breast tomosynthesis improves sensitivity in the detection of architectural distortion.

Shaheen R, Schimmelpenninck CA, Stoddart L, Raymond H, Slanetz PJ (2011) Spectrum of diseases presenting as architectural distortion on mammography: multimodality radiologic imaging with pathologic correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32:351–362CrossRefPubMed

Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV (2015) Architectural Distortion on Mammography: Correlation With Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1339–1345CrossRefPubMed

Gaur S, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL (2013) Architectural distortion of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:W662–W670CrossRefPubMed

Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR et al (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199:811–817CrossRefPubMed

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 18:2817–2825CrossRefPubMed

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 266:104–113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408CrossRefPubMed

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

Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB (2015) Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 274:337–342CrossRefPubMed

11.

Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2014) Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:216–222CrossRefPubMed

12.

Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA (2015) Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localisation of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions. Radiology 275:377–383

13.

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

14.

Ray KM, Turner E, Sickles EA, Joe BN (2015) Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings. Breast J 21:538–542CrossRefPubMed

15.

Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA (2002) Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 9:531–540CrossRefPubMed

16.

Onega T, Smith M, Miglioretti DL et al (2012) Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type. J Am Coll Radiol 9:788–794CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Suleiman WI, McEntee MF, Lewis SJ et al (2016) In the digital era, architectural distortion remains a challenging radiological task. Clin Radiol 71:e35–e40CrossRefPubMed

18.

Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London

19.

Geller BM, Bogart A, Carney PA, Elmore JG, Monsees BS, Miglioretti DL (2012) Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W134–W141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM et al (2017) Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology 283:371–380CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lang K, Nergarden M, Andersson I, Rosso A, Zackrisson S (2016) False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Eur Radiol 26:3899–3907CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Kalife ET, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Wang Y (2016) Clinical and Radiologic Follow-up Study for Biopsy Diagnosis of Radial Scar/Radial Sclerosing Lesion without Other Atypia. Breast J 22:637–644CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ferreira AI, Borges S, Sousa A et al (2017) Radial scar of the breast: Is it possible to avoid surgery? Eur J Surg Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2017.01.238 PubMed

Title: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion
Authors: Elizabeth H. Dibble
Ana P. Lourenco
Grayson L. Baird
Robert C. Ward
A. Stanley Maynard
Martha B. Mainiero
Publication date: 01-01-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4968-8

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key points

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Different patterns of longitudinal brain and spinal cord changes and their associations with disability progression in NMO and MS

Bone marrow oedema predicts bone collapse in paediatric and adolescent leukaemia patients with corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis

Revised PROPELLER for T2-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: impact on lesion detection and PI-RADS classification

Statistical clustering of parametric maps from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI and an associated decision tree model for non-invasive tumour grading of T1b solid clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Disrupted topological organization of brain structural network associated with prior overt hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotic patients

High resolution post-mortem MRI of non-fixed in situ foetal brain in the second trimester of gestation: Normal foetal brain development