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
  • [31] Interval cancer in the Córdoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone
    Pulido-Carmona, Cristina
    Romero-Martin, Sara
    Raya-Povedano, Jose Luis
    Cara-Garcia, Maria
    Font-Ugalde, Pilar
    Elias-Cabot, Esperanza
    Pedrosa-Garriguet, Margarita
    Alvarez-Benito, Marina
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (8) : 5427 - 5438
  • [32] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study
    Gennaro, Gisella
    Toledano, Alicia
    di Maggio, Cosimo
    Baldan, Enrica
    Bezzon, Elisabetta
    La Grassa, Manuela
    Pescarini, Luigi
    Polico, Ilaria
    Proietti, Alessandro
    Toffoli, Aida
    Muzzio, Pier Carlo
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2010, 20 (07) : 1545 - 1553
  • [33] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study
    Gisella Gennaro
    Alicia Toledano
    Cosimo di Maggio
    Enrica Baldan
    Elisabetta Bezzon
    Manuela La Grassa
    Luigi Pescarini
    Ilaria Polico
    Alessandro Proietti
    Aida Toffoli
    Pier Carlo Muzzio
    [J]. European Radiology, 2010, 20 : 1545 - 1553
  • [34] Impact of switching from digital mammography to tomosynthesis plus digital mammography on breast cancer screening in Alberta, Canada
    Pang, Jack X. Q.
    Newsome, James
    Sun, Maggie
    Chiang, Bonnie
    Mutti-Packer, Seema
    McDonald, Sheila W.
    Yang, Huiming
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2022, 29 (01) : 38 - 43
  • [35] Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer
    Chikarmane, Sona A.
    Cochon, Laila R.
    Khorasani, Ramin
    Sahu, Sonia
    Giess, Catherine S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2021, 217 (03) : 587 - 594
  • [36] Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis
    Ethan O. Cohen
    Rachel E. Perry
    Hilda H. Tso
    Kanchan A. Phalak
    Michele D. Lesslie
    Karen E. Gerlach
    Jia Sun
    Ashmitha Srinivasan
    Jessica W. T. Leung
    [J]. European Radiology, 2021, 31 : 9499 - 9510
  • [37] The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Tucker, Lorraine
    Gillan, Maureen G. C.
    Willsher, Paula
    Cooke, Julie
    Duncan, Karen A.
    Michell, Michael J.
    Dobson, Hilary M.
    Lim, Yit Yoong
    Purushothaman, Hema
    Strudley, Celia
    Astley, Susan M.
    Morrish, Oliver
    Young, Kenneth C.
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    [J]. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2015, 19 (04) : 1 - +
  • [38] Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis
    Cohen, Ethan O.
    Perry, Rachel E.
    Tso, Hilda H.
    Phalak, Kanchan A.
    Lesslie, Michele D.
    Gerlach, Karen E.
    Sun, Jia
    Srinivasan, Ashmitha
    Leung, Jessica W. T.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (12) : 9499 - 9510
  • [39] Screening outcomes of digital Breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in an underserved population with multiple disparities
    McLarty, Jerry W.
    Lance, Jennifer
    Collins, Towanno
    Grubbs, Sharon
    Massey, Stacey
    Luraguiz, Nelson
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2017, 26 (02)
  • [40] Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Gastounioti, Aimilia
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Pantalone, Lauren
    Synnestvedt, Marie
    Kontos, Despina
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (02) : 319 - 326