Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: High-resolution x-ray imaging observer study

Radiology

Volumn 262, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 788-796

  Wallis, Matthew G ^a   Moa, Elin ^b   Zanca, Federica ^c   Leifland, Karin ^d   Danielsson, Mats ^e  

^a CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d ST GÖRAN S HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^e ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST EXAMINATION; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOSYNTHESIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ROC CURVE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84858713666     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11103514     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. Breast cancer screening: International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Handbooks of Cancer prevention. Lyon, France: IARC, 2002.
2. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229(3):877-884. (Pubitemid 37467596)
3. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program - the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004;232(1):197-204. (Pubitemid 38787838)
4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773-1783. (Pubitemid 41549889)
5. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(4):860-866. (Pubitemid 47479768)
6. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. JAMA 2003;290(16):2129-2137. (Pubitemid 37432973)
7. Niklason LT, Kopans DB, Hamberg LM. Digital breast imaging: tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography. Breast Dis 1998;10(3-4):151-164. (Pubitemid 28470210)
8. Rafferty E. Assessing radiologist performance using combined full-field digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography alone: results of a multi-center, multi-reader trial. RSNA Web site. http://rsna2007.rsna.org/rsna2007/V2007/conference. Published December 2007. Accessed September 2010.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(1):16-24.
12. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A. Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007;34(1):221-232. (Pubitemid 46035245)
13. Gong X, Glick SJ, Liu B, Vedula AA, Thacker S. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosynthesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Med Phys 2006;33(4):1041-1052.
14. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BIRADS Atlas). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
15. Åslund M, Cederström B, Lundqvist M, Danielsson M. Physical characterization of a scanning photon counting digital mammography system based on Si-strip detectors. Med Phys 2007;34(6):1918-1925. (Pubitemid 47055726)
16. Åslund M, Cederström B, Lundqvist M, Danielsson M. AEC for scanning digital mammography based on variation of scan velocity. Med Phys 2005;32(11):3367-3374. (Pubitemid 41689289)
17. Åslund M, Cederström B, Lundqvist M, Danielsson M. Scatter rejection in multislit digital mammography. Med Phys 2006;33(4):933-940.
18. Lange K, Fessler JA. Globally convergent algorithms for maximum a posteriori transmission tomography. IEEE Trans Image Process 1995;4(10):1430-1438.
19. Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 2011;56(2):453-471.
20. Obuchowski NA, Lieber ML, Powell KA. Data analysis for detection and localization of multiple abnormalities with application to mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7(7):516-525. (Pubitemid 30432337)
21. Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Cohen CS, Clearfield RJ, Gur D. "Memory effect"in observer performance studies of mammograms. Acad Radiol 2005;12(3):286-290. (Pubitemid 40353757)
22. Jacobs J, Zanca F, Marchal G, Bosmans H. Implementation of a novel software framework for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in digital radiology. RSNA Website. http://rsna2008.rsna.org/rsna2008/V2008/ conference. Published December 2008. Accessed December 2010.
23. Swensson RG. Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. Med Phys 1996;23(10):1709-1725.
24. 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.
25. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 2008;15(5):647-661. (Pubitemid 351515893)
26. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
27. 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)
28. Chakrabarti K, Ochs R, Pennello G, Samuelson F. P080003 Hologic Selenia Dimensions 3D System. FDA Executive Summary September 2010. http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/ CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/ MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM226757.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2011.
29. 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)
30. Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L. Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2008;5116:61-66.
31. Andersson I. Radiographic screening for breast carcinoma. III. Appearance of carcinoma and number of projections to be used at screening. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1981;22(4):407-420. (Pubitemid 12244548)
32. Hackshaw AK, Wald NJ, Michell MJ, Field S, Wilson AR. An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than oneview in breast cancer screening. Clin Radiol 2000;55(6):454-458. (Pubitemid 32054552)
33. Gur D. Tomosynthesis: potential clinical role in breast imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):614-615. (Pubitemid 47328543)
34. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 2008;249(1):47-53.