Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis

被引:15
作者
Simon, Katherine [1 ]
Dodelzon, Katerina [1 ]
Drotman, Michele [1 ]
Levy, Allison [1 ]
Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan [1 ]
Askin, Gulce [1 ]
Katzen, Janine [1 ]
机构
[1] Weill Cornell Med, Dept Radiol, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
2D; breast cancer; mammogram; synthetic; tomosynthesis; RECONSTRUCTED PROJECTION IMAGES; BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; INITIAL-EXPERIENCE; IMPLEMENTATION; COMBINATION; WOMEN;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.18.20520
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
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. CONCLUSION. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.
引用
收藏
页码:1406 / 1411
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Food and Drug Administration, FDA SUMM SAF EFF DAT
  • [2] 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
  • [3] Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis
    Gennaro, Gisella
    Bernardi, D.
    Houssami, N.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (02) : 573 - 581
  • [4] 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
  • [5] Dose Reduction in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Screening using Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: An Observer Performance Study
    Gur, David
    Zuley, Margarita L.
    Anello, Maria I.
    Rathfon, Grace Y.
    Chough, Denise M.
    Ganott, Marie A.
    Hakim, Christiane M.
    Wallace, Luisa
    Lu, Amy
    Bandos, Andriy I.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2012, 19 (02) : 166 - 171
  • [6] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study
    Gur, David
    Abrams, Gordon S.
    Chough, Denise M.
    Ganott, Marie A.
    Hakim, Christiane M.
    Perrin, Ronald L.
    Rathfon, Grace Y.
    Sumkin, Jules H.
    Zuley, Margarita L.
    Bandos, Andriy I.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (02) : 586 - 591
  • [7] Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support
    Harris, Paul A.
    Taylor, Robert
    Thielke, Robert
    Payne, Jonathon
    Gonzalez, Nathaniel
    Conde, Jose G.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2009, 42 (02) : 377 - 381
  • [8] MEASUREMENT OF OBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL DATA
    LANDIS, JR
    KOCH, GG
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 1977, 33 (01) : 159 - 174
  • [9] Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women: Recommendations From the ACR Commission on Breast Imaging
    Monticciolo, Debra L.
    Newell, Mary S.
    Hendrick, R. Edward
    Helvie, Mark A.
    Moy, Linda
    Monsees, Barbara
    Kopans, Daniel B.
    Eby, Peter R.
    Sickles, Edward A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 14 (09) : 1137 - 1143
  • [10] National Comprehensive Cancer Network, BREAST CANC SCREEN D