Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: Comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images

Radiology

Volumn 271, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 655-663

  Skaane, Per ^a   Bandos, Andriy I ^b   Eben, Ellen B ^a   Jebsen, Ingvild N ^a   Krager, Mona ^a   Haakenaasen, Unni ^a   Ekseth, Ulrika ^c   Izadi, Mina ^a   Hofvind, Solveig ^d   Gullien, Randi ^a  

^a ULLEVÅL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

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

^c Curato Roentgen Institute   (Norway)

^d Institute of Population based Cancer Research   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; IMAGING AND DISPLAY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE REDUCTION; TWO DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REGISTRIES;

EID: 84901650352     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131391     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthe-sis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;133(1):267-271.
2. Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P, et al. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 2013;23(3):664-672.
3. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586-591.
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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14(7):583-589.
10. 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.
11. Olgar T, Kahn T, Gosch D. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Rofo 2012;184(10):911-918.
12. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomo-synthesis. I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys 2013;40(1):014301.
13. 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.
14. 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/MedicalDevice-sAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevices- Panel/UCM324861.pdf Published October 24, 2012. Accessed February 12, 2013.
15. 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.
16. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-flm and full-feld digital mammography with soft-copy reading-Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229(3):877-884.
17. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-flm mam-mography versus full-feld digital mam-mography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004;232(1):197-204.
18. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011; 18(10): 1298-1310.
19. Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosyn-thesis 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.
20. Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifand K, Danielsson M. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-feld digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 2012; 262(3):788-796.