Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: A comparison of diagnostic accuracy

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 85, Issue 1019, 2012, Pages

  Svahn, T M ^a   Chakraborty, D P ^b   Ikeda, D ^c   Zackrisson, S ^a   Do, Y ^c   Mattsson, S ^a   Andersson, I ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84864849066     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/53282892     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Sasieni PD, Shelton J, Ormiston-Smith N, Thomson CS, Silcocks PB. What is the lifetime risk of developing cancer? The effect of adjusting for multiple primaries. Br J Cancer 2011;105:406-65.
2. Socialstyrelsen. se [homepage on the Internet]. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare; Cancer Incidence in Sweden 2008 [cited 9 July 2011]. Available from: www.socialstyrelsen. se/publikationer2009/ 2009-12-1
3. Laming D, Warren R. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. J Med Screen 2000;7:24-30. (Pubitemid 30305463)
4. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27 825 patient evaluations. Radiol 2002;225:165-75.
5. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 2009;50:503-14.
6. Bochud FO, Valley JF, Verdun FR, Hessler C, Schnyder P. Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. Med Phys 1999;26:1365-70. (Pubitemid 29334805)
7. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 2001;28:419-37. (Pubitemid 32323293)
8. Boone JM, Kwan ALC, Yang K, Burkett, GW, Lindfors KK, Nelson TR. Computed tomography for imaging the breast. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2006;11:103-11. (Pubitemid 46111259)
9. Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan ALC, Miller DF. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2008;246:725-33.
10. Kalender WA. Concepts for high-resolution CT of the breasts. LNCS 2010;6136:421-7.
11. Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L. Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. LNCS 2008;5116:61-6.
12. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, Svensson S, Ikeda D, Förnvik 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 Dosim 2010;139:113-17.
13. Michell MJ, Wasan RK, Iqbal A, Peacock C, Evans DR, Morel JC. Two-view 2D digital mammography versus one-view digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12(Suppl. 3):3.
14. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CH, Nygy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:616-23. (Pubitemid 47328544)
15. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:865-9. (Pubitemid 351571506)
16. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis-an observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:586-91.
17. Teertstra HJ. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16-24.
18. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010 Jul; 20:1545-53.
19. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BI-RADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2817-25.
20. Förnvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, Svahn T, Timberg P, Tingberg A, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography. Acta Radiol 2010;51:240-7.
21. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiol 2008;246:376-83.
22. Metz C. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989;24:234-45. (Pubitemid 19084791)
23. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; 2002.
24. Bissonnette M, Hansroul M, Masson E, Savard S, Cadieux S, Warmoes P, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector. Proc SPIE 2005;5745:529-40. (Pubitemid 41146400)
25. Sechopoulos I, Suryanaranayan S, Vedantham S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A. Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 2007;34:221-32. (Pubitemid 46035245)
26. Mertelmeier T, Orman J, Haerer W, Kumar MK. Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device. Proc SPIE 2006;6142:131-42.
27. Zhao B, Zhou J, Hu YH, Mertelmeier T, Ludwig J, Zhao W. Experimental validation of a three-dimensional linear system model for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2009;36:240-51.
28. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3rd edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998.
29. Håkansson M, Svensson S, Zachrisson S, Svalkvist A, Båth M, Månsson LG. VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010;139:42-51.
30. DICOM [homepage on the Internet]. DICOM Part 14 Grayscale Standard Display Function PS 3.14-2011. Rossly, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) [cited 24 May 2012]. Available from: http://medical.nema.org/standard.html
31. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty DP, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). AAPM On-Line Report no. 03. Madison, WI, Task Group 18, Medical Physics Publishing; 2005.
32. Van Engen R, Young KC, Bosmans H, Thijssen M. The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. Part B: Digital mammography. In: European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening. 4th edn. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2006.
33. Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS. Radiologist studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 2004;31:2313-30. (Pubitemid 39079724)
34. Chakraborty DP. Recent advances in radiologist performance methodology: jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:45-52.
35. ACR.org [homepage on the Internet]. BI-RADS ATLAS and MQSA: frequently asked questions. Reston, VA: The American College of Radiology [updated:8 November 2011; cited 24 June 2010]. Available from: www.acr.org/ SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality-safety/BI-RADSAtlas/BI-RADSFAQs.aspx
36. Chakraborty DP. A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:3449-62. (Pubitemid 44026411)
37. Chakraborty DP. New developments in observer performance methodology in medical imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2011;41:401-18.
38. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. ROC characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-31.
39. Metz CE, Pan X. Proper" binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 1999;43:1-33.
40. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, Blachar A, Bogan JK, Brancatelli G, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiol 2003;228:10-14. (Pubitemid 36736062)
41. Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Cohen CS, Clearfield RJ, Gur D. Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms. Acad Radiol 2005;12:286-90. (Pubitemid 40353757)
42. Hilleren DJ, Andersson I, Lindholm K, Linnell FS. Invasive lobular carcinoma: mammographic findings in a 10-year experience. Radiology 1991;178:149-54.
43. Gathani T, Bull D, Green J, Reeves G, Beral V; Million Women Study Collaborators. Breast cancer histological classification: agreement between the Office for National Statistics and the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:R1090-6.
44. Klemi PJ, Parvinen L, Pylkkänen L, Kauhava L, Immonen- Räihä P, Räsänen O, et al. Significant improvement in breast cancer survival through population-based mammography screening. Breast 2003;12:308-13. (Pubitemid 37322061)
45. Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R. Calcifications in the Breast and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Breast J 2011;17:638-44.