Efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis

被引:1
作者
Alakhras, M. [1 ]
Mello-Thoms, C. [1 ]
Rickard, M. [1 ]
Bourne, R. [1 ]
Brennan, P. C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, MIOPeG Fac Hlth Sci, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia
来源
MEDICAL IMAGING 2014: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT | 2014年 / 9037卷
关键词
Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Breast Cancer; Diagnostic performance; CLINICAL-PERFORMANCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; CALCIFICATIONS; EXPERIENCE; ACCURACY; 2-VIEW;
D O I
10.1117/12.2043321
中图分类号
O43 [光学];
学科分类号
070207 ; 0803 ;
摘要
Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in combination with digital mammography (DM) with that of digital mammography alone Materials and Methods Twenty six experienced radiologists who specialized in breast imaging read 50 cases (27 cancers and 23 non-cancer cases) of patients who underwent DM and DBT. Both exams included the craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. Histopathologic examination established truth in all lesions. Each case was interpreted in two modes, once with DM alone followed by DM+DBT, and the observers were asked to mark the location of any lesions, if present, and give it a score based on a five-category assessment by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). The diagnostic performance of DM compared with that of DM+DBT was evaluated in terms of the difference between areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs), Jackknife free-response receiver operator characteristics (JAFROC) figure-of-merit, sensitivity, location sensitivity and specificity. Results Average AUC and JAFROC for DM versus DM+DBT was significantly different (AUCs 0.690 vs 0.781, p=<0.0001), (JAFROC 0.618 vs. 0.732, p=<0.0001) respectively. In addition, the use of DM+DBT resulted in an improvement in sensitivity (0.629 vs. 0.701, p=0.0011), location sensitivity (0.548 vs. 0.690, p=<0.0001) and specificity (0.656 vs. 0.758, p=0.0015) when compared to DM alone. Conclusion Adding DBT to the standard DM significantly improved radiologists' performance in terms of AUCs, JAFROC figure of merit, sensitivity, location sensitivity and specificity values.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012, DEMENTIA AUSTR
[2]   Can Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Replace Conventional Diagnostic Mammography Views for Screening Recalls Without Calcifications? A Comparison Study in a Simulated Clinical Setting [J].
Brandt, Kathleen R. ;
Craig, Daniel A. ;
Hoskins, Tanya L. ;
Henrichsen, Tara L. ;
Bendel, Emily C. ;
Brandt, Stephanie R. ;
Mandrekar, Jay .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 200 (02) :291-298
[3]   Screening for breast cancer [J].
Elmore, JG ;
Armstrong, K ;
Lehman, CD ;
Fletcher, SW .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 293 (10) :1245-1256
[4]   Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography [J].
Fornvik, Daniel ;
Zackrisson, Sophia ;
Ljungberg, Otto ;
Svahn, Tony ;
Timberg, Pontus ;
Tingberg, Anders ;
Andersson, Ingvar .
ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2010, 51 (03) :240-247
[5]  
Gennaro G., EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, V20, P1545
[6]  
Gennaro G, 2008, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V5116, P477, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-70538-3_66
[7]   Tomosynthesis-Based Imaging of the Breast [J].
Gur, David .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2011, 18 (10) :1203-1204
[8]   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
[9]   Breast cancer imaging: A perspective for the next decade [J].
Karellas, Andrew ;
Vedantham, Srinivasan .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (11) :4878-4897
[10]  
Motulsky HJ., 2007, GraphPad Prism Version 5.0 Regression Guide