Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions

Radiology

Volumn 266, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 89-95

  Zuley, Margarita L ^a,b   Bandos, Andriy I ^c   Ganott, Marie A ^a,b   Sumkin, Jules H ^a,b   Kelly, Amy E ^a,b   Catullo, Victor J ^a,b   Rathfon, Grace Y ^a,b   Lu, Amy H ^a,b   Gur, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST CYST; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST EXAMINATION; BREAST FIBROADENOMA; BREAST LESION; BREAST PAPILLOMA; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; ECHOGRAPHY; FAT NECROSIS; FEMALE; FIBROCYSTIC BREAST DISEASE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAPILLARY CARCINOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSEUDOANGIOMATOUS STROMAL HYPERPLASIA; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUPPLEMENTAL DIAGNOSTIC MAMMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; BREAST DISEASES; CALCINOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84871703598     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12120552     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224(3):861-869. (Pubitemid 34919825)
2. BCSC website http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/benchmarks/screening/ Accessed 12/1/2012.
3. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005;235(3):775-790. (Pubitemid 40695870)
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. 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)
6. 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.
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(12):2817-2825.
8. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(1):16-24.
9. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2012;19(2):166-171.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 2012;262(1):61-68.
13. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(2):320-324.
14. Zhou XH, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011.
15. Hillis SL, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. OR/DBM MRMC 3.0 for SAS (computer software). http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu. Accessed February 12, 2012.
16. 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)
17. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
18. Förnvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 2010;51(3):240-247.
19. Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE, et al. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(3):737-741.
20. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012;22(3):539-544.