Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography

European Radiology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 664-672

  Gennaro, Gisella ^a   Hendrick, R Edward ^b   Ruppel, Patricia ^c   Chersevani, Roberta ^d   Di Maggio, Cosimo ^e   La Grassa, Manuela ^f   Pescarini, Luigi ^a   Polico, Ilaria ^a   Proietti, Alessandro ^a   Baldan, Enrica ^a   Bezzon, Elisabetta ^a   Pomerri, Fabio ^a   Muzzio, Pier Carlo ^a  

^a VENETO INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY IOV IRCCS   (Italy)

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

^c Innovative Analytics   (United States)

^d Private Clinical Practice   (Italy)

^e Private Practice   (Italy)

^f CENTRO DI RIFERIMENTO ONCOLOGICO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast tomosynthesis; Clinical performance; Mammography; Receiver operating characteristics; Tomography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST LESION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE VIEW DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; SINGLE VIEW DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; TWO VIEW DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 84878573977     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2649-1     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE et al (1997) Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205:399-406
2. Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, Fajardo LL, Niklason LT (2007) Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 27:S231-S240
3. Rafferty E (2007) Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin N Am 45:831-843
4. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ et al (2008) Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:865-869
5. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) 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 18:2817-2825
6. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586-591
7. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MAAJ et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 20:16-24
8. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2010) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545-1553
9. Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, Andersson I. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012 Jun 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22674710
10. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution x-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:788-796
11. Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. Am J Roentgenol 196:737-741
12. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D et al (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosim 139:113-117
13. Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, Evans DR, Peacock C, Lawinski CP, Douiri A, Wilson R, Whelehan P. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol. 2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 22625656
14. Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (ed) Medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging. Proceedings of SPIE 2006;6142:61425-E
15. Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedhantam S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A (2007) Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys 34:232-331
16. Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453-471
17. American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). © American College of Radiology, Reston
18. Pesce LL, Metz CE (2007) Reliable and computationally efficient maximum likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 14:814-829
19. Obuchowski NA (2007) New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 243:10-12
20. Obuchowski NA (1995) Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 2:S22-S29
21. Obuchowski NA (1997) Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:13-17
22. Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596-619
23. Pater C (2004) Equivalence and noninferiority trials-are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs ? (III). Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 5:8-14
24. Vecchio S, Albanese A, Vignoli P, Taibi A (2011) A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol 21:1207-1213
25. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2010) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320-324
26. Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 6:638-644
27. Chakrabarti K, Ochs R, Pennello G, Samuelson F. P080003 Hologic Selenia dimension 3D system. FDA executive summary September 2010, http://www.fda.gov. downloads.AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterial/MedicalDevices/ MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM226757.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2011
28. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47-53