Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: Comparison with traditional mammography

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 134-142

  Svane, Gunilla ^a   Azavedo, Edward ^a   Lindman, Karin ^b   Urech, Mattias ^b   Nilsson, Jonas ^b   Weber, Niclas ^b   Lindqvist, Lars ^b   Ullberg, Christer ^b  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b XCounter AB   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast imaging; Digital mammography; Mammography screening; Photon counting; Tomosynthesis

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; BREAST IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING; PHOTON COUNTING; TOMOSYNTHESIS;

BIOMINERALIZATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHOTONS; RATING; TISSUE; TWO DIMENSIONAL; X RAY SCREENS;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTON; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTONS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 79958857367     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/ar.2010.100262     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Dobbins JT. Tomosynthesis imaging: At a translational crossroads. Med Phys 2009;36:1956-67
2. Niklason LT, Chritian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205:399-406 (Pubitemid 27467317)
3. Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, et al. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 2003;30:365-80 (Pubitemid 36337103)
4. Gong X, Glick SJ, Liu B, et al. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Med Phys 2006;33:1041-52
5. Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, et al. Optimal Acquisition Techniques for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening. Proceedings of Medical Imaging SPIE 2006;6142:61425E-1-11
6. Zhao B, Zhao W. Imaging performance of an amorphous selenium digital mammography detector in a breast tomosynthesis system. Med Phys 2008;35:1978-87 (Pubitemid 351614813)
7. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, 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
8. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: A clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1545-53
9. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: Initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16-24
10. Maidment ADA, Ullberg C, Francke T, et al. Clinical evaluation of a photon-counting tomosynthesis mammography system. In: Astley SM, Brady M, Rose, Zwiggelaar R, eds. Digital Mammography. Berlin: Springer, 2010:144-51 (Pubitemid 44113105)
11. Elwood M, McNoe B, Smith T, et al. Once is enough - why some women do not continue to participate in a breast cancer screening programme. N Z Med J 1998;111:180-3 (Pubitemid 128473277)
12. Hofvind SSH, Wang H, Thoresen S. The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: Re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result. Cancer Causes and Control 2003;14:391-8 (Pubitemid 36735110)
13. Papas MA, Klassen AC. Pain and discomfort associated with mammography among urban low-income African-American women. J Community Health 2005;30:253-67 (Pubitemid 40754893)
14. Maidment ADA, Ullberg C, Lindman K, et al. Evaluation of a photon-counting breast tomosynthesis imaging system. Proceedings of Medical Imaging SPIE 2006;6142:61420B-1-11
15. Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, et al. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2004;31:2636-47 (Pubitemid 39287881)
16. DBM-MRMC 2.1B2 software. See www.radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/ KRL-ROC/software-index6.htm. (last checked February 18, 2010)
17. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-31
18. Metz CE, Pan X. 'Proper' binormal ROC curves: Theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 1999; 43:1-33
19. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 2008;15:647-61 (Pubitemid 351515893)
20. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS. Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 2004;11:1260-73
21. Hillis SL. A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Statistics in Med 2007;26:596-619 (Pubitemid 46139541)
22. Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion. Statistical Sci 2001;16:101-33 (Pubitemid 33636344)
23. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:586-91
24. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:616-23 (Pubitemid 47328544)
25. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: Novel applications. Radiol Clin N Am 2007;45:831-43 (Pubitemid 47411641)
26. Förnvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 2010;51:240-7
27. Eng J. Sample size estimation: A glimpse beyond simple formulas. Radiology 2004:230:606-12 (Pubitemid 38252851)