Detection and Classification of Calcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2D Digital Mammography: A Comparison

被引:209
作者
Spangler, M. Lee [1 ]
Zuley, Margarita L. [2 ]
Sumkin, Jules H. [2 ]
Abrams, Gordan [2 ]
Ganott, Marie A. [2 ]
Hakim, Christiane [2 ]
Perrin, Ronald [2 ]
Chough, Denise M. [2 ]
Shah, Ratan [2 ]
Gur, David [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Magee Womens Hosp, Dept Radiol, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Dept Radiol, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
calcifications; digital breast tomosynthesis; digital mammography; SCREEN-FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; PERFORMANCE; OBSERVER; RISK;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.10.4656
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 article is to compare the ability of digital breast tomosynthesis and full field digital mammography (FFDM) to detect and characterize calcifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred paired examinations were performed utilizing FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis. Twenty biopsy-proven cancers, 40 biopsy-proven benign calcifications, and 40 randomly selected negative screening studies were retrospectively reviewed by five radiologists in a crossed multireader multimodal observer performance study. Data collected included the presence of calcifications and forced BI-RADS scores. Receiver operator curve analysis using BI-RADS was performed. RESULTS. Overall calcification detection sensitivity was higher for FFDM (0.84% [95% CI, 0.79-0.88%]) than for digital breast tomosynthesis (0.75% [95% CI, 0.70-0.80%]). In the cancer cohort, 75 (76%) of 99 interpretations identified calcification in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score less than or equal to 2 was rendered in three (4%) and nine (12%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. In the benign cohort, 123 (62%) of 200 interpretations identified calcifications in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 was assigned in 105 (85%) and 93 (76%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. There was no significant difference in the nonparametric computed area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) using the BI-RADS scores (FFDM, AUC = 0.76 and SD = 0.03; digital breast tomosynthesis, AUC = 0.72 and SD = 0.04 [p = 0.1277]). CONCLUSION. In this small data set, FFDM appears to be slightly more sensitive than digital breast tomosynthesis for the detection of calcification. However, diagnostic performance as measured by area under the curve using BI-RADS was not significantly different. With improvements in processing algorithms and display, digital breast tomosynthesis could potentially be improved for this purpose.
引用
收藏
页码:320 / 324
页数:5
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   The Preponderance of Evidence Supports Computer-aided Detection for Screening Mammography [J].
Birdwell, Robyn L. .
RADIOLOGY, 2009, 253 (01) :9-16
[2]   Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy [J].
Burnside, Elizabeth S. ;
Ochsner, Jennifer E. ;
Fowler, Kathryn J. ;
Fine, Jason P. ;
Salkowski, Lonie R. ;
Rubin, Daniel L. ;
Sisney, Gale A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2007, 242 (02) :388-395
[3]   Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: Comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts [J].
Del Turco, Marco Rosselli ;
Mantellini, Paola ;
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Bonardi, Rita ;
Martinelli, Francesca ;
Lazzari, Barbara ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 189 (04) :860-866
[4]   CADx of mammographic masses and clustered microcalcifications: A review [J].
Elter, Matthias ;
Horsch, Alexander .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (06) :2052-2068
[5]   Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study [J].
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 .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2010, 20 (07) :1545-1553
[6]   Digital breast tomosynthesis: A pilot observer study [J].
Good, Walter F. ;
Abrams, Gordon S. ;
Catullo, Victor J. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Gur, David .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2008, 190 (04) :865-869
[7]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study [J].
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. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (02) :586-591
[8]   Comparison of Digital Mammography and Screen-Film Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Review in the Irish Breast Screening Program [J].
Hambly, Niamh M. ;
McNicholas, Michelle M. ;
Phelan, Niall ;
Hargaden, Gormlaith C. ;
O'Doherty, Ann ;
Flanagan, Fidelma L. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (04) :1010-1018
[9]   Parenchymal Texture Analysis in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Risk Estimation: A Preliminary Study [J].
Kontos, Despina ;
Bakic, Predrag R. ;
Carton, Ann-Katherine ;
Troxel, Andrea B. ;
Conant, Emily F. ;
Maidment, Andrew D. A. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2009, 16 (03) :283-298
[10]   Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening [J].
Pisano, ED ;
Gatsonis, C ;
Hendrick, E ;
Yaffe, M ;
Baum, JK ;
Acharyya, S ;
Conant, EF ;
Fajardo, LL ;
Bassett, L ;
D'Orsi, C ;
Jong, R ;
Rebner, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 353 (17) :1773-1783