Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: Comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 55, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 661-667

  Seo, Nieun ^a   Kim, Hak Hee ^a   Shin, Hee Jung ^a   Cha, Joo Hee ^a   Kim, Hyunji ^a   Moon, Jin Hee ^b   Gong, Gyungyub ^a   Ahn, Sei Hyun ^a   Son, Byung Ho ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Hallym University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Diagnostic performance; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Specimen

Indexed keywords

CHARACTERIZATION; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; SURGERY;

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGIES; BREAST IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEMS; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS (DBT); DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; SPECIMEN;

MAMMOGRAPHY;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; BREAST LESION; BREAST SURGERY; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SIZE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; TUMOR VOLUME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84905984570     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0284185113503636     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Heine JJ, Malhotra P. Mammographic tissue, breast cancer risk, serial image analysis, and digital mammography. Part 1. Tissue and related risk factors. Acad Radiol 2002;9:298-316.
2. Dobbins JT 3rd, Godfrey DJ. Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:R65-R106.
3. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:831-843.
4. Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 2004;24:1747-1760.
5. Diekmann F, Bick U. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011;32:281-287.
6. El-Bastawissi AY, White E, Mandelson MT, et al. Variation in mammographic breast density by race. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11:257-263.
7. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989;63:181-187.
8. Kinne DW. Staging and follow-up of breast cancer patients. Cancer 1991;67:1196-1198.
9. Bonadonna G, Veronesi U, Brambilla C, et al. Primary chemotherapy to avoid mastectomy in tumors with diameters of three centimeters or more. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:1539-1545.
10. Jacquillat C, Weil M, Baillet F, et al. Results of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in the breastconserving treatment of 250 patients with all stages of infiltrative breast cancer. Cancer 1990;66:119-129.
11. Park JM, Franken EA Jr, Garg M, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications. Radiographics 2007;27 (Suppl. 1):S231-S240.
12. Fornvik D, Andersson I, Svahn T, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 2010;51:240-247.
13. Gennaro G, Toledano A, diMaggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1545-1553.
14. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:865-869.
15. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:586-591.
16. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:616-623.
17. 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;139:113-117.
18. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16-24.
19. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205:399-406.
20. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammograph: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classificationi in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2817-2825.
21. Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, et al. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2004;31:2636-2647.
22. Zhang Y, Chan H-P, Sahiner B, et al. A comparative study of limited angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2006;33:3781-3795.
23. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al. Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol 2003;48:285-292.
24. Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, et al. Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg 2001;182:351-354.
25. Pierie JPEN, Perre CI, Levert LM, et al. Clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasonography as methods of measuring the size of breast cancer: a comparison. Breast 1998;7:247-250.
26. Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG, et al. Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol 2004;17:905-910.
27. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48:917-929.
28. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:321-324.