Comparison of Two-dimensional synthesized Mammograms versus Original Digital Mammograms alone and in combination with Tomosynthesis images

Radiology

Volumn 271, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 664-671

  Zuley, Margarita L ^a,b   Guo, Ben ^c   Catullo, Victor J ^a,b   Chough, Denise M ^a,b   Kelly, Amy E ^a,b   Lu, Amy H ^a,b   Rathfon, Grace Y ^a,b   Spangler, Marion Lee ^a,b   Sumkin, Jules H ^a,b   Wallace, Luisa P ^a,b   Bandos, Andriy I ^c  

^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; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM SCORE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RADIATION DOSE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOSYNTHESIS; TWO DIMENSIONAL SYNTHESIZED MAMMOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84901649898     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131530     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205(2):399-406.
2. Moore RH, Kopans DB, Rafferty EA, et al. Initial callback rates for conventional and digital breast tomosynthesis mammography comparison in the screening environment [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientifc Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007; 381.
3. Hologic submission to FDA panel for approval of tomosynthesis. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/Commit-teesMeetingMaterials/ MedicalDevices/Medi-calDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/Radiologi-calDevicesPanel/ UCM226757.pdf. Published September 24, 2010. Accessed December 18, 2013.
4. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roent-genol 2007;189(3):616-623.
5. Smith A, Niklason L, Jing Z. Performance of breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct imaging modality to digital mammography [abstr]. Eur Radiol 2008;18(1):150.
6. Smith A, Rafferty E, Niklason L. Breast to-mosynthesis reduces radiologist performance variability compared to digital mammogra-phy [abstr]. Eur Radiol 2009;19(1):S151.
7. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
8. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;133(1):267-271.
9. 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.
10. Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjørndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53(5):524-529.
11. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices, products and medical procedures, device approvals and clearances, recently approved devices. http://www.fda. gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedical-Procedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearanc-es/ Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm246400. htm. Published September 6, 2013. Accessed December 18, 2013.
12. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcifed breast lesions. Radiology 2013;266(1):89-95.
13. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266(1):104-113.
14. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(6):1401-1408.
15. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, et al. Detection and classifcation of calcifcations on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(2):320-324.
16. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Prospective trial comparing full-feld digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 2013;23(8):2061-2071.
17. Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE, et al. Localized detection and classifcation of abnormalities on FFDM and tomo-synthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196(3):737-741.
18. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47-56.
19. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, et al. Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations. Acad Radiol 2010;17(4):450-455.
20. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1020):e1174-e1178.
21. Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo 2012;184(10):911-918.
22. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomo-synthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys 2013;40(1):014301.
23. Vecchio S, Albanese A, Vignoli P, Taibi A. A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthe-sis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images. Eur Radiol 2011;21(6):1207-1213.
24. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthe-sis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2012;19(2):166-171.
25. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Meeting of the Radiological Devices Advisory Panel. P080003/S001 Hologic Selenia Dimensions 3D system FDA executive summary. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeeting Materials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevices AdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevices- Panel/UCM324861.pdf. Published October 24, 2012. Accessed December 18, 2013.