Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization

Radiology

Volumn 262, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 61-68

  Noroozian, Mitra ^a   Hadjiiski, Lubomir ^a   Rahnama Moghadam, Sahand ^b   Klein, Katherine A ^a   Jeffries, Deborah O ^a   Pinsky, Renee W ^a   Chan, Heang Ping ^a   Carson, Paul L ^a   Helvie, Mark A ^a   Roubidoux, Marilyn A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHIC SPOT VIEW; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84455167880     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101763     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Berkowitz JE, Gatewood OM, Gayler BW. Equivocal mammographic findings: evaluation with spot compression. Radiology 1989;171(2):369-371. (Pubitemid 19108102)
2. Faulk RM, Sickles EA. Efficacy of spot compression-magnification and tangential views in mammographic evaluation of palpable breast masses. Radiology 1992;185(1):87-90.
3. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205(2):399-406. (Pubitemid 27467317)
4. 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(12):2817-2825.
5. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20(7):1545-1553.
6. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(4):865-869. (Pubitemid 351571506)
7. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
8. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):616-623. (Pubitemid 47328544)
9. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139(1-3):113-117.
10. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(1):16-24.
11. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, et al. Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 2010;17(4):450-455.
12. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(2):W172-W176.
13. Zhang Y, Chan HP, Sahiner B, Wei J, Zhou C, Hadjiiski LM. Artifact reduction methods for truncated projections in iterative breast tomosynthesis reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009;33(3):426-435.
14. Kapur A, Carson PL, Thomenius K, et al. Co-registered breast imaging with 3D X-ray and 3D ultrasound. In: Procs Digital Mammography: International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Bremen, Germany: Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2003;38-42.
15. Eberhard J, Staudinger P, Smolenski J, et al. High-speed large-angle mammography tomosynthesis system. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2006 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 6142. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2006;1420C1-1420C11.
16. Lu Y, Chan HP, Goodsitt MM, et al. Effects of projection-view distributions on image quality of calcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reconstruction. In: Samei E, Pelc NJ, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2010 - physics of medical imaging. Vol 7622. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2010;76220D1-76220D8.
17. Zhang Y, Chan HP, Sahiner B, et al. A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2006;33(10):3781-3795. (Pubitemid 44505103)
18. Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, Lecarpentier G, et al. A combined tomosynthesis-breast ultrasound system: initial results regarding coverage and mass visibility [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2006;484.
19. Hadjiiski L, Chan HP, Sahiner B, et al. Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology 2004;233(1):255-265. (Pubitemid 39280982)
20. Sinha SP, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, et al. Multi-modality 3D breast imaging with x-ray tomosynthesis and automated ultrasound. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2007;2007:1335-1338.
21. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989;24(3):234-245. (Pubitemid 19084791)
22. Metz CE, Pan X. "Proper" binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 1999;43(1):1-33.
23. 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(9):723-731.
24. Jiang Y, Metz CE, Nishikawa RM. A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radiology 1996;201(3):745-750. (Pubitemid 26392624)
25. Obuchowski NA. Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175(3):603-608.
26. Eng J. Sample size estimation: a glimpse beyond simple formulas. Radiology 2004;230(3):606-612. (Pubitemid 38252851)