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
  • [41] Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Greenberg, Julianne S.
    Hayes, Mary K.
    Copit, Debra S.
    Carlson, Kara L.
    Cink, Thomas M.
    Barke, Lora D.
    Greer, Linda N.
    Miller, Dave P.
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2499 - 2507
  • [42] Early Clinical Experience with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening Mammography
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Haas, Brian M.
    Yao, Xiaopan
    Geisel, Jaime L.
    Raghu, Madhavi
    Hooley, Regina J.
    Horvath, Laura J.
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2015, 274 (01) : 85 - 92
  • [43] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis A Brave New World of Mammography Screening
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2016, 2 (06) : 725 - 727
  • [44] A new breast phantom suitable for digital mammography, contrast-enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Zhang, Changsheng
    Fu, Jian
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2023, 68 (04):
  • [45] Breast Cancer Screening Should Tomosynthesis Replace Digital Mammography?
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2488 - 2489
  • [46] Comparison of computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Samala, Ravi K.
    Chan, Heang-Ping
    Lu, Yao
    Hadjiiski, Lubomir
    Wei, Jun
    Helvie, Mark
    [J]. MEDICAL IMAGING 2015: COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, 2015, 9414
  • [47] Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Improves Performance of Mammography Screening
    Bae, Min Sun
    Seo, Bo Kyoung
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2023, 307 (03)
  • [48] Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening
    Caumo, Francesca
    Romanucci, Giovanna
    Hunter, Kylie
    Zorzi, Manuel
    Brunelli, Silvia
    Macaskill, Petra
    Houssami, Nehmat
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2018, 170 (02) : 391 - 397
  • [49] Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening
    Francesca Caumo
    Giovanna Romanucci
    Kylie Hunter
    Manuel Zorzi
    Silvia Brunelli
    Petra Macaskill
    Nehmat Houssami
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2018, 170 : 391 - 397
  • [50] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography (FFDM) in younger symptomatic women
    Whelehan, Patsy
    Ali, Kulsam
    Vinnicombe, Sarah
    Ball, Graham
    Cox, Julie
    Farry, Paul
    Jenkin, Maggie
    Kapsoulis, Dimitrios
    Lowry, Keith
    McIntosh, Stuart
    Nutt, Rachel
    Oeppen, Rachel
    Reilly, Michael
    Stahnke, Michaela
    Steel, Jim
    Sim, Yee Ting
    Warwick, Violet
    Wilkinson, Louise
    Evans, Andrew
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 20