Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer 3/2017

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Detectability comparison of modes in dual-mode digital breast tomosynthesis

Authors: Tokiko Endo, Takako Morita, Mikinao Oiwa, Namiko Suda, Yasuyuki Sato, Shu Ichihara, Misaki Shiraiwa, Kazuaki Yoshikawa, Takao Horiba, Hirotoshi Ogawa, Yukie Hayashi, Tomonari Sendai, Takahisa Arai

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The objectives of this study were: (1) to evaluate the detectability of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus dual-mode digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and compare it with that of FFDM alone and (2) to compare the detectability of high-resolution-mode (HR mode used with 40°-angle imaging, 100-µm pixel size, and higher dose) DBT with that of standard-mode (ST mode used with 15°-angle imaging, 150-µm pixel size, and lower dose) DBT for diagnostic evaluation.

Materials

The local Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study of two different sets of cases. All participants gave written informed consent. FFDM and DBT images of 471 women who were recalled were acquired between August 2013 and October 2014. HR mode and ST mode were applied to 155 breasts and 157 breasts, respectively. The cases of both modes were selected randomly. Eight radiologists interpreted the images. The detectability for recall cases and for follow cases, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated.

Results

Adding DBT to FFDM significantly increased the detectability for recall cases and AUC relative to those of FFDM alone (HR mode 8.9 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.7, 15.0 %; P = 0.013 and 4.9 %; 95 % CI 2.1, 7.7 %; P = 0.001; ST mode 8.3 %; 95 % CI 4.1, 12.1 %; P = 0.007 and 2.9 %; 95 % CI 0.5, 5.3 %; P = 0.02), whereas the detectability for follow cases did not significantly differ. The AUC increase was significantly higher in HR mode than in ST mode (1.5 %; 95 % CI 0.5, 3.7 %; P = 0.023).

Conclusion

Adding HR-mode or ST-mode DBT to FFDM significantly improved the detectability for diagnostic evaluation case.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Yoshihiro O, Keiichiro S, Takaaki I, Yuichi H, Toshirou H. A newly developed a-Se mammography flat panel detector with high-sensitivity and low image artifact. In: Proc SPIE 8668, Medical imaging 2013: physics of medical imaging, 86685 V; 2013. Yoshihiro O, Keiichiro S, Takaaki I, Yuichi H, Toshirou H. A newly developed a-Se mammography flat panel detector with high-sensitivity and low image artifact. In: Proc SPIE 8668, Medical imaging 2013: physics of medical imaging, 86685 V; 2013.
2.
go back to reference Women’s Imaging 2015 Breast Imaging Vol. 10. INNERVISION. 2015;30(8):76–81. Women’s Imaging 2015 Breast Imaging Vol. 10. INNERVISION. 2015;30(8):76–81.
3.
go back to reference Hori M, Matsuda T, Shibata A, Katanoda K, Sobue T, Nishimoto H, et al. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2009: a study of 32 population-based cancer registries for the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(9):884–91.CrossRefPubMed Hori M, Matsuda T, Shibata A, Katanoda K, Sobue T, Nishimoto H, et al. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 2009: a study of 32 population-based cancer registries for the Monitoring of Cancer Incidence in Japan (MCIJ) project. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(9):884–91.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7(12):1133–44.PubMed Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Byng JW, Tritchler DL, Yaffe MJ. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998;7(12):1133–44.PubMed
5.
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(2):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(2):399–406.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:299–308.CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:299–308.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders RS, Lo JY, Baker JA. A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. Med Phys. 2008;35(4):1337–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chawla AS, Samei E, Saunders RS, Lo JY, Baker JA. A mathematical model platform for optimizing a multiprojection breast imaging system. Med Phys. 2008;35(4):1337–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, Chersevani R, Maggio Cd, Grassa ML, et al. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(3):664–72.CrossRefPubMed Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, Chersevani R, Maggio Cd, Grassa ML, et al. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(3):664–72.CrossRefPubMed
9.
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(3):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(3):788–96.CrossRefPubMed
10.
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(1):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(1):104–13.CrossRefPubMed
11.
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. 1019;2012(85):e1074–82. 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. 1019;2012(85):e1074–82.
12.
go back to reference American College of Radiology. Breast imaging-reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging-reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
13.
go back to reference Endo T, Ooiwa M, Morita T, Suda N, Yoshikawa K, Shiraiwa M, et al. Clinical evaluation of dual mode tomosynthesis. In: Fujita H, Hara T, Muramatsu C, editors. IWDM 2014; LNCS 8539. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 536–43. Endo T, Ooiwa M, Morita T, Suda N, Yoshikawa K, Shiraiwa M, et al. Clinical evaluation of dual mode tomosynthesis. In: Fujita H, Hara T, Muramatsu C, editors. IWDM 2014; LNCS 8539. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. p. 536–43.
14.
go back to reference Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology. Mammography guideline, vol. 3. Tokyo: Igaku-Shoin; 2015. Japan Radiological Society, Japanese Society of Radiological Technology. Mammography guideline, vol. 3. Tokyo: Igaku-Shoin; 2015.
15.
go back to reference Hanley JA, McNeil B. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29–36.CrossRefPubMed Hanley JA, McNeil B. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29–36.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, Geisel JL, Raghu M, Hooley RJ, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology. 2015;274(1):85–92.CrossRefPubMed Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, Geisel JL, Raghu M, Hooley RJ, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology. 2015;274(1):85–92.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of tomosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(4):i–xxv, 1–136. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of tomosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(4):i–xxv, 1–136.
19.
go back to reference Samei E, Saunders RS, Baker JA, Delong DM. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology. 2007;243(2):396–404.CrossRefPubMed Samei E, Saunders RS, Baker JA, Delong DM. Digital mammography: effects of reduced radiation dose on diagnostic performance. Radiology. 2007;243(2):396–404.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kuwabara T, Iwasaki N, Yamane K, Kojima T, Fukushima K, Agano T. The dependency of pixel size on calcification reproducibility in digital mammography. Proc SPIE. 2007;6515:65150G.CrossRef Kuwabara T, Iwasaki N, Yamane K, Kojima T, Fukushima K, Agano T. The dependency of pixel size on calcification reproducibility in digital mammography. Proc SPIE. 2007;6515:65150G.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gill KS, Yankaskas BC. Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice. Cancer. 2004;100(1):139–48.CrossRefPubMed Gill KS, Yankaskas BC. Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice. Cancer. 2004;100(1):139–48.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Detectability comparison of modes in dual-mode digital breast tomosynthesis
Authors
Tokiko Endo
Takako Morita
Mikinao Oiwa
Namiko Suda
Yasuyuki Sato
Shu Ichihara
Misaki Shiraiwa
Kazuaki Yoshikawa
Takao Horiba
Hirotoshi Ogawa
Yukie Hayashi
Tomonari Sendai
Takahisa Arai
Publication date
01-05-2017
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0725-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Breast Cancer 3/2017 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