OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess ergonomic and diagnostic performance-related issues associated with the interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis-generated examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty selected cases were read under three different display conditions by nine experienced radiologists in a fully crossed, mode-balanced observer performance study. The reading modes included full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone, the 11 low-dose projections acquired for the reconstruction of tomosynthesis images, and the reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis examination. Observers rated cases under the free-response receiver operating characteristic, as well as a screening paradigm, and provided subjective assessments of the relative diagnostic value of the two digital breast tomosynthesis-based image sets as compared with FFDM. The time to review and diagnose each case was also evaluated. RESULTS: Observer performance measures were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) primarily because of the small sample size in this pilot study, suggesting that showing significant improvements in diagnosis, if any, will require a larger study. Several radiologists did perceive the digital breast tomosynthesis image set and the projection series to be better than FFDM (p < 0.05) for diagnosing this specific case set. The time to review, interpret, and rate the examinations was significantly different for the techniques in question (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tomosynthesis-based breast imaging may have great potential, but much work is needed before its optimal role in the clinical environment is known.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess ergonomic and diagnostic performance-related issues associated with the interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis-generated examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty selected cases were read under three different display conditions by nine experienced radiologists in a fully crossed, mode-balanced observer performance study. The reading modes included full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone, the 11 low-dose projections acquired for the reconstruction of tomosynthesis images, and the reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis examination. Observers rated cases under the free-response receiver operating characteristic, as well as a screening paradigm, and provided subjective assessments of the relative diagnostic value of the two digital breast tomosynthesis-based image sets as compared with FFDM. The time to review and diagnose each case was also evaluated. RESULTS: Observer performance measures were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) primarily because of the small sample size in this pilot study, suggesting that showing significant improvements in diagnosis, if any, will require a larger study. Several radiologists did perceive the digital breast tomosynthesis image set and the projection series to be better than FFDM (p < 0.05) for diagnosing this specific case set. The time to review, interpret, and rate the examinations was significantly different for the techniques in question (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tomosynthesis-based breast imaging may have great potential, but much work is needed before its optimal role in the clinical environment is known.
Authors: Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Heang-Ping Chan; Carl J D'Orsi; Lori E Dodd; Maryellen L Giger; David Gur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Charles E Metz; Kyle J Myers; Nancy A Obuchowski; Berkman Sahiner; Alicia Y Toledano; Margarita L Zuley Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; M P Lux; E Wenkel; S Schwab; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Gautam S Muralidhar; Mia K Markey; Alan C Bovik; Tamara Miner Haygood; Tanya W Stephens; William R Geiser; Naveen Garg; Beatriz E Adrada; Basak E Dogan; Selin Carkaci; Raunak Khisty; Gary J Whitman Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; B Brehm; M Hammon; M Saake; P Dankerl; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.915