Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: A multireader performance study

European Radiology

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2441-2449

  Thibault, Fabienne ^a   Dromain, Clarisse ^b   Breucq, Catherine ^c   Balleyguier, Corinne S ^b   Malhaire, Caroline ^a   Steyaert, Luc ^d   Tardivon, Anne ^a   Baldan, Enrica ^e   Drevon, Harir ^f  

^a INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^b INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^c VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^d General Hospital St Jan   (Belgium)

^e VENETO INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY IOV IRCCS   (Italy)

^f Numerus Statistics Ltd   (France)

Author keywords

3D imaging; Breast; Breast neoplasms; Mammography; ROC analysis

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST SURGERY; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYMPTOM; TOMOGRAPHY; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84882239240     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2863-5     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. Diekmann F, Bick U (2011) Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32:281-287
3. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:616-623
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. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586-591
6. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737-741
7. Rafferty E, Park J, Philpotts L, et al. (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104-113
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. 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
10. 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
11. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. (2009) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 20:16-24
12. Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, et al. (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524-529
13. van Engen R, van Wouldenberg S, Bosmans H, Young K, Thjissen M (2006) European protocol for the quality control of the physical aspects of mammography screening - Screen-film mammography. In: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. European Commission, Luxembourg, pp 61-104
14. Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans DB (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn M, Hsieh J (eds) Proceedings of SPIE - medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging, vol 6142. International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), Bellingham, p 61425-E
15. Wu T, Moore R, Rafferty E, Kopans D (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636-2647
16. Zhang YCH-P, Sahiner B, Wei J, Goodsitt MM, Hadjiiski LM, Ge J, Zhou C (2006) A comparative study of limited angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 33:3781-3795
17. Gonen M (2007) Analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves with SAS®. SAS Institute, Cary
18. Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, et al. (2010) Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 51:240-247
19. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, et al. (2010) 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 139:113-117
20. Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, et al. (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 5:e1074-e1082
21. Svane G, Azavedo E, Lindman K, et al. (2011) Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Acta Radiol 52:134-142
22. Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, et al. (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664-672
23. U.S. National Institutes of Health (2012) ClinicalTrials.gov U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda. Available via www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Accessed 09 Jan 2013
24. Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben E, et al. (2011) Reading time of FFDM and Tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2011.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013
25. Rose L, Ice M, Sullivan Nordmann A, Sexton RJ, Song R (2012) A comparison of recall rates between full field digital mammography (FFDM) and full field digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a community setting. RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2012.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013
26. Haas B, Bihari Kalra V, Raghu M, Philpotts L (2012) Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis compared to conventional digital mammography for breast cancer screening. RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2012.rsna.org/ search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013
27. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47-56
28. Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Di Maggio C, et al. (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis: radiologists' learning process. RSNA, Chicago. Available via http://rsna2012.rsna.org/search/index.cfm. Accessed 9 January 2013