Microcalcifications Detected at Screening Mammography: Synthetic Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Digital Mammography

被引:29
|
作者
Lai, Yi-Chen [1 ,2 ]
Ray, Kimberly M. [4 ]
Lee, Amie Y. [3 ]
Hayward, Jessica H. [3 ]
Freimanis, Rita I. [3 ]
Lobach, Iryna V. [3 ]
Joe, Bonnie N. [3 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Radiol, Taipei, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Taipei, Taiwan
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, 1600 Divisadero St,Box 1667,Room C250, San Francisco, CA 94115 USA
[4] Permanente Med Grp Inc, Dept Radiol, 3600 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94611 USA
关键词
SYNTHESIZED 2-DIMENSIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY; RECONSTRUCTED PROJECTION IMAGES; DBT; CALCIFICATIONS; IMPLEMENTATION; COMBINATION; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2018181180
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare the performance of two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in the detection of microcalcifications on screening mammograms. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective multireader observer study, 72 consecutive screening mammograms recalled for microcalcifications from June 2015 through August 2016 were evaluated with both FFDM and DBT. The data set included 54 mammograms with benign microcalcifications and 18 mammograms with malignant microcalcifications, and 20 additional screening mammograms without microcalcifications used as controls. FFDM alone was compared to synthetic mammography plus DBT. Four readers independently reviewed each data set and microcalcification recalls were tabulated. Sensitivity and specificity for microcalcification detection were calculated for SM plus DBT and for FFDM alone. Interreader agreement was calculated with Fleiss kappa values. Results: Reader agreement was kappa value of 0.66 (P < .001) for FFDM and 0.63 (P < .001) for SM plus DBT. For FFDM, the combined reader sensitivity for all microcalcifications was 80% (229 of 288; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 74%, 84%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 92% (66 of 72; 95% CI: 83%, 97%). For SM plus DBT, the combined reader sensitivity for all microcalcifications was 75% (215 of 288; 95% CI: 69%, 80%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 94% (68 of 72; 95% CI: 86%, 98%). For FFDM, the combined reader specificity for all microcalcifications was 98% (78 of 80; 95% CI: 91%, 100%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 98% (78 of 80; 95% CI: 91%, 100%). For SM plus DBT, combined reader specificity for all microcalcifications was 95% (76 of 80; 95% CI: 88%, 99%) and for malignant microcalcifications was 95% (76 of 80; 95% CI: 88%, 99%). Mixed-effects model concluded no differences between modalities (-0.03; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.01; P = .13). Conclusion: Relative to full-field digital mammography, synthetic mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity for the detection of microcalcifications previously identified for recall at screening mammography. (C) RSNA, 2018.
引用
收藏
页码:630 / 638
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Breast Cancer Screening via Digital Mammography, Synthetic Mammography, and Tomosynthesis
    Cohen, Ethan O.
    Weaver, Olena O.
    Tso, Hilda H.
    Gerlach, Karen E.
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 58 (03) : 470 - 472
  • [2] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial
    Skaane, Per
    Bandos, Andriy L.
    Niklason, Loren T.
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Osteras, Bjorn H.
    Gullien, Randi
    Gur, David
    Hofvind, Solveig
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (01) : 22 - 29
  • [3] Is Synthetic Mammography Comparable to Digital Mammography for Detection of Microcalcifications in Screening?
    Bae, Min Sun
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (03) : 639 - 640
  • [4] Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
    Choi, Ji Soo
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    Ko, Eun Young
    Kim, Ga Ram
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Park, Ko Woon
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (01) : 319 - 329
  • [5] Breast Cancer Detection: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Mammography versus Digital Mammography
    Ha, Su Min
    Chang, Jung Min
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 309 (03)
  • [6] Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
    Ji Soo Choi
    Boo-Kyung Han
    Eun Young Ko
    Ga Ram Kim
    Eun Sook Ko
    Ko Woon Park
    [J]. European Radiology, 2019, 29 : 319 - 329
  • [7] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial
    Pattacini, Pierpaolo
    Nitrosi, Andrea
    Rossi, Paolo Giorgi
    Iotti, Valentina
    Ginocchi, Vladimiro
    Ravaioli, Sara
    Vacondio, Rita
    Braglia, Luca
    Cavuto, Silvio
    Campari, Cinzia
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 375 - 385
  • [8] Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Akhtar, Amana L.
    Synnestvedt, Marie B.
    Schnall, Mitchell
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (05) : 1143 - 1148
  • [9] Performance of 2D Synthetic Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in the Detection of Microcalcifications at Screening
    Dodelzon, Katerina
    Simon, Katherine
    Dou, Eda
    Levy, Allison D.
    Michaels, Aya Y.
    Askin, Gulce
    Katzen, Janine T.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2020, 214 (06) : 1436 - 1444
  • [10] Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening
    Haas, Brian M.
    Kalra, Vivek
    Geisel, Jaime
    Raghu, Madhavi
    Durand, Melissa
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (03) : 694 - 700