OBJECTIVE: To assess if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is at least equal to digital spot compression view (DSCV). METHODS: Following institutional approval and written informed consent, both DBT and DSCV were obtained in women with a screening abnormality. The diagnostic accuracy of DBT and DSCV was evaluated by two radiologists of varying experience (Reader1 and Reader2). RESULTS: 52 consecutive recalled women without calcification (mean age: 51 ± 12 years) underwent DSCV and DBT. Overall sensitivity was equal for both techniques (100% [95% CI, 91-100%] for DBT and 100% [95% CI, 91-100%] for DSCV). Overall specificity was higher for DBT (100% [95%CI, 91-100%]) than for DSCV (94% [95% CI, 91-100%]). Specificity for DSCV was higher for Reader1 (95% [95% CI, 91-100%]). Reader2 had lower values of specificity (92% [95% CI, 90-92%]). On DSCV, three and two false positives were recorded by Reader2 and Reader1, respectively. Overall, the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for DBT (AUC = 1) than for DSCV (AUC = 0.963). The mean difference between the two techniques was not significantly different (P = 0.43). CONCLUSION: In this dataset, diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis is at least equal to that of digital spot compression. KEY POINTS: • Digital spot compression views (DSCVs) are often needed in breast screening programmes. • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) now offers an alternative to DSCV • In recalls without calcification, DBT was at least equally accurate as DSCVs • DBT has a lower mean glandular dose than DSCVs • Thus DBT has the potential to help reduce the recall rate.
OBJECTIVE: To assess if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is at least equal to digital spot compression view (DSCV). METHODS: Following institutional approval and written informed consent, both DBT and DSCV were obtained in women with a screening abnormality. The diagnostic accuracy of DBT and DSCV was evaluated by two radiologists of varying experience (Reader1 and Reader2). RESULTS: 52 consecutive recalled women without calcification (mean age: 51 ± 12 years) underwent DSCV and DBT. Overall sensitivity was equal for both techniques (100% [95% CI, 91-100%] for DBT and 100% [95% CI, 91-100%] for DSCV). Overall specificity was higher for DBT (100% [95%CI, 91-100%]) than for DSCV (94% [95% CI, 91-100%]). Specificity for DSCV was higher for Reader1 (95% [95% CI, 91-100%]). Reader2 had lower values of specificity (92% [95% CI, 90-92%]). On DSCV, three and two false positives were recorded by Reader2 and Reader1, respectively. Overall, the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for DBT (AUC = 1) than for DSCV (AUC = 0.963). The mean difference between the two techniques was not significantly different (P = 0.43). CONCLUSION: In this dataset, diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis is at least equal to that of digital spot compression. KEY POINTS: • Digital spot compression views (DSCVs) are often needed in breast screening programmes. • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) now offers an alternative to DSCV • In recalls without calcification, DBT was at least equally accurate as DSCVs • DBT has a lower mean glandular dose than DSCVs • Thus DBT has the potential to help reduce the recall rate.
Authors: David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christiane M Hakim; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Lee Spangler; Margarita L Zuley; Jules H Sumkin; Gordan Abrams; Marie A Ganott; Christiane Hakim; Ronald Perrin; Denise M Chough; Ratan Shah; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Amy E Kelly; Victor J Catullo; Grace Y Rathfon; Amy H Lu; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Schulz-Wendtland; T Wittenberg; T Michel; A Hartmann; M W Beckmann; C Rauh; S M Jud; B Brehm; M Meier-Meitinger; G Anton; M Uder; P A Fasching Journal: Radiologe Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 0.635