Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the clinical value of combining one-view mammography (cranio-caudal, CC) with the complementary view tomosynthesis (mediolateral-oblique, MLO) in comparison to standard two-view mammography (MX) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization.
Methods
A free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) experiment was conducted independently by six breast radiologists, obtaining data from 463 breasts of 250 patients. Differences in mean lesion detection fraction (LDF) and mean lesion characterization fraction (LCF) were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare clinical performance of the combination of techniques to standard two-view digital mammography.
Results
The 463 cases (breasts) reviewed included 258 with one to three lesions each, and 205 with no lesions. The 258 cases with lesions included 77 cancers in 68 breasts and 271 benign lesions to give a total of 348 proven lesions. The combination, DBT(MLO)+MX(CC), was superior to MX (CC+MLO) in both lesion detection (LDF) and lesion characterization (LCF) overall and for benign lesions. DBT(MLO)+MX(CC) was non-inferior to two-view MX for malignant lesions.
Conclusions
This study shows that readers’ capabilities in detecting and characterizing breast lesions are improved by combining single-view digital breast tomosynthesis and single-view mammography compared to two-view digital mammography.
Key Points
• Digital breast tomosynthesis is becoming adopted as an adjunct to mammography (MX)
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion detection (overall and benign lesions)
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in cancer detection
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is superior to MX (CC+MLO) in lesion characterization (overall and benign lesions)
• DBT (MLO) +MX (CC) is non-inferior to MX (CC+MLO) in characterization of malignant lesions
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ANOVA:
-
analysis of variance
- CC:
-
cranio-caudal
- DBT:
-
digital breast tomosynthesis
- DBT(MLO)+MX(CC) :
-
combination of one-view (MLO) tomosynthesis and one-view (CC) mammography
- FROC:
-
free-response receiver operating characteristics
- LCF:
-
lesion characterization fraction
- LDF:
-
lesion detection fraction
- MLO:
-
medio-lateral oblique
- MX:
-
standard mammography
- MX(CC+MLO) :
-
standard mammography in two views
References
Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256
Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group: diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783
Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175
Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE (2004) Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer risk. Radiology 230:29–41
Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancer missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613–617
Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S et al (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 18:2817–2825
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591
Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA et al (2012) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010:16–24
Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 20:1545–1553
Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M (2012) Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high resolution x-ray imaging observer study. Radiology 262:78–796
Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjørndal H et al (2012) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 53:524–529
Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981
Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, Andersson I (2012) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 85:e1074–82
Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2012) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–72
Obuchowski NA (2005) Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists: ROC analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:364–372
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36
Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modelling, analysis and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330
Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741
Kopans DB (2007) Breast imaging, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 323–342
Wu T, Liu B, Moore R, Kopans D (2006) Optimal acquisition techniques for digital breast tomosynthesis screening. In: Flynn MJ, Hsieh J (eds) Medical imaging 2006: physics of medical imaging. Proc SPIE 6142:61425E
Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB (2004) A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 31:2636–2647
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
Obuchowski NA (1997) Testing for equivalence of diagnostic tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:13–17
Hillis SL (2007) A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619
Chen W, Petrick NA, Sahiner B (2012) Hypothesis testing in noninferiority and equivalence MRMC ROC studies. Acad Radiol 19:1158–1165
Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:320–324
Kopans DB, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R (2011) Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 17:638–664
Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS et al (2008) The “laboratory” effect: comparing radiologists’ performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 249:47–53
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Luc Katz, Aurora Talaverano, Francesca Braga, Henri Souchay, Razvan Iordache, Sylvain Bernard and Laura Hernandez from GE Healthcare for scientific discussions and technical support. They are also grateful to Andrea Azzalini for his help in preparation of manuscript illustrations.
R Edward Hendrick and Alicia Toledano are consultants to GE Healthcare.
This paper uses the same diagnostic subjects as another paper previously published in European Radiology, but applies per-lesion analysis rather than the more standard per-case analysis. Perlesion analysis, less popular than conventional ROC analysis, allows for the possibility of multiple lesions per case, and considers both lesion detection and lesion characterization. The per-lesion approach increases the statistical power of the analysis and allows us to better determine the potential diagnostic role of DBT in clinical application.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gennaro, G., Hendrick, R.E., Toledano, A. et al. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 23, 2087–2094 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2831-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2831-0