Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers

被引:31
作者
Kim, Won Hwa [1 ]
Chang, Jung Min [1 ]
Moon, Hyeong-Gon [2 ]
Yi, Ann [3 ]
Koo, Hye Ryoung [4 ]
Gweon, Hye Mi [5 ]
Moon, Woo Kyung [1 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, 101 Daehangno, Seoul 110744, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Surg, Seoul 110744, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Gangnan Healthcare Ctr, Seoul 110744, South Korea
[4] Hanyang Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul 133791, South Korea
[5] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Gangnam Severance Hosp, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Magnetic resonance imaging; Imaging; Three-dimensional; mammography; Breast neoplasms/pathology; Sensitivity and specificity; PREOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT; ULTRASOUND; MRI; ACCURACY; RISK;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-015-3998-3
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
To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography in women with known breast cancers. Three radiologists independently reviewed image sets of 172 patients with 184 cancers; mammography alone, DBT plus mammography and MRI plus mammography, and scored for cancer probability using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC), which allows diagnostic performance estimation using single lesion as a statistical unit in a cancer-only population, was used. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared using the McNemar and Fisher-exact tests. The JAFROC figures of merit (FOMs) was lower in DBT plus mammography (0.937) than MRI plus mammography (0.978, P = 0.0006) but higher than mammography alone (0.900, P = 0 .0013). The sensitivity was lower in DBT plus mammography (88.2 %) than MRI plus mammography (97.8 %) but higher than mammography alone (78.3 %, both P < 0 .0001). The PPV was significantly higher in DBT plus mammography (93.3 %) than MRI plus mammography (89.6 %, P = 0 .0282). DBT provided lower diagnostic performance than MRI as an adjunctive imaging to mammography. However, DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography and higher PPV than MRI. aEuro cent Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus mammography was compared with MRI plus mammography. aEuro cent DBT had lower sensitivity and higher PPV than MRI. aEuro cent DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography.
引用
收藏
页码:1556 / 1564
页数:9
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer [J].
Berg, WA ;
Gutierrez, L ;
NessAiver, MS ;
Carter, WB ;
Bhargavan, M ;
Lewis, RS ;
Ioffe, OB .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 233 (03) :830-849
[2]   Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Zhang, Zheng ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Pisano, Etta D. ;
Barr, Richard G. ;
Boehm-Velez, Marcela ;
Mahoney, Mary C. ;
Evans, W. Phil, III ;
Larsen, Linda H. ;
Morton, Marilyn J. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Farria, Dione M. ;
Cormack, Jean B. ;
Marques, Helga S. ;
Adams, Amanda ;
Yeh, Nolin M. ;
Gabrielli, Glenna .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13) :1394-1404
[3]   Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study [J].
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Bernardi, Daniela ;
Caumo, Francesca ;
Pellegrini, Marco ;
Brunelli, Silvia ;
Tuttobene, Paola ;
Bricolo, Paola ;
Fanto, Carmine ;
Valentini, Marvi ;
Montemezzi, Stefania ;
Macaskill, Petra .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2013, 14 (07) :583-589
[4]   Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis [J].
Clauser, Paola ;
Carbonaro, Luca A. ;
Pancot, Martina ;
Girometti, Rossano ;
Bazzocchi, Massimo ;
Zuiani, Chiara ;
Sardanelli, Francesco .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2015, 25 (10) :2830-2839
[5]  
D'Orsi C.J., 2003, Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) breast imaging atlas
[6]   Early Clinical Experience with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening Mammography [J].
Durand, Melissa A. ;
Haas, Brian M. ;
Yao, Xiaopan ;
Geisel, Jaime L. ;
Raghu, Madhavi ;
Hooley, Regina J. ;
Horvath, Laura J. ;
Philpotts, Liane E. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 274 (01) :85-92
[7]   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
[8]   Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography [J].
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. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24) :2499-2507
[9]   Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: Experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues [J].
Gur, David ;
Rockette, Howard E. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2008, 15 (10) :1312-1315
[10]   Localized Detection and Classification of Abnormalities on FFDM and Tomosynthesis Examinations Rated Under an FROC Paradigm [J].
Gur, David ;
Bandos, Andriy I. ;
Rockette, Howard E. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Sumkin, Jules H. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2011, 196 (03) :737-741