Literature DB >> 21998048

Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

Mitra Noroozian1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) performs comparably to mammographic spot views (MSVs) in characterizing breast masses as benign or malignant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study obtained informed consent from all subjects. Four blinded Mammography Quality Standards Act-certified academic radiologists individually evaluated DBT images and MSVs of 67 masses (30 malignant, 37 benign) in 67 women (age range, 34-88 years). Images were viewed in random order at separate counterbalanced sessions and were rated for visibility (10-point scale), likelihood of malignancy (12-point scale), and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Differences in mass visibility were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. Reader performance was measured by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) and partial area index above a sensitivity threshold of 0.90 (A(z)(0.90)) by using likelihood of malignancy ratings. Masses categorized as BI-RADS 4 or 5 were compared with histopathologic analysis to determine true-positive results for each modality.
RESULTS: Mean mass visibility ratings were slightly better with DBT (range, 3.2-4.4) than with MSV (range, 3.8-4.8) for all four readers, with one reader's improvement achieving statistical significance (P = .001). The A(z) ranged 0.89-0.93 for DBT and 0.88-0.93 for MSV (P ≥ .23). The A(z)((0.90)) ranged 0.36-0.52 for DBT and 0.25-0.40 for MSV (P ≥ .20). The readers characterized seven additional malignant masses as BI-RADS 4 or 5 with DBT than with MSV, at a cost of five false-positive biopsy recommendations, with a mean of 1.8 true-positive (range, 0-3) and 1.3 false-positive (range, -1 to 4) assessments per reader.
CONCLUSION: In this small study, mass characterization in terms of visibility ratings, reader performance, and BI-RADS assessment with DBT was similar to that with MSVs. Preliminary findings suggest that MSV might not be necessary for mass characterization when performing DBT. © RSNA, 2011.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21998048      PMCID: PMC3244671          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11101763

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  22 in total

1.  "Proper" Binormal ROC Curves: Theory and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Math Psychol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.223

2.  Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Yiheng Zhang; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Ge; Chuan Zhou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study.

Authors:  Walter F Good; Gordon S Abrams; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Multi-modality 3D breast imaging with X-Ray tomosynthesis and automated ultrasound.

Authors:  Sumedha P Sinha; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mark A Helvie; Alexis V Nees; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Gerald L LeCarpentier; J Brian Fowlkes; Carl L Chalek; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2007

6.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.

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

7.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.

Authors:  L T Niklason; B T Christian; L E Niklason; D B Kopans; D E Castleberry; B H Opsahl-Ong; C E Landberg; P J Slanetz; A A Giardino; R Moore; D Albagli; M C DeJule; P F Fitzgerald; D F Fobare; B W Giambattista; R F Kwasnick; J Liu; S J Lubowski; G E Possin; J F Richotte; C Y Wei; R F Wirth
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.

Authors:  T Svahn; I Andersson; D Chakraborty; S Svensson; D Ikeda; D Förnvik; S Mattsson; A Tingberg; S Zackrisson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  Artifact reduction methods for truncated projections in iterative breast tomosynthesis reconstruction.

Authors:  Yiheng Zhang; Heang-Ping Chan; Berkman Sahiner; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Lubomir M Hadjiiski
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

10.  Time to diagnosis and performance levels during repeat interpretations of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary observations.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Gordon S Abrams; Cathy Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Jules H Sumkin; John Drescher; Howard E Rockette; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 3.173

View more
  36 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary study on comparison with picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and dedicated workstation.

Authors:  Young Seon Kim; Jung Min Chang; Ann Yi; Sung Ui Shin; Myung Eun Lee; Won Hwa Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Masses in the era of screening tomosynthesis: Is diagnostic ultrasound sufficient?

Authors:  Sadia Choudhery; Jessica Axmacher; Amy Lynn Conners; Jennifer Geske; Kathy Brandt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Authors:  S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.

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

10.  Epidemiology of Breast Cancer - Current Figures and Trends.

Authors:  N Eisemann; A Waldmann; A Katalinic
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.915

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.