RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the interpretive performance of synthetically reconstructed two-dimensional images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists trained in reading tomosynthesis examinations interpreted retrospectively, under two modes, 114 mammograms. One mode included the directly acquired full-field digital mammograms combined with DBT, and the other included synthetically reconstructed projection images combined with DBT. The reconstructed images do not require additional radiation exposure. The two modes were compared with respect to sensitivity, namely, recommendation to recall a breast with either a pathology-proven cancer (n = 48) or a high-risk lesion (n = 6), and specificity, namely, no recommendation to recall a breast not depicting an abnormality (n = 144) or depicting only benign abnormalities (n = 30). RESULTS: The average sensitivity for FFDM with DBT was 0.826, compared to 0.772 for synthetic FFDM with DBT (difference, 0.054; P = .017 and P = .053 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). The proportions of breasts with no or benign abnormalities recommended to be recalled were virtually the same: 0.298 and 0.297 for the two modalities, respectively (95% confidence intervals for the difference, -0.028 to 0.036 and -0.070 to 0.066 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). Sixteen additional clusters of microcalcifications ("positive" breasts) were missed by all readers combined when interpreting the mode with synthesized images versus FFDM. CONCLUSIONS: Lower sensitivity with comparable specificity was observed with the tested version of synthetically generated images compared to FFDM, both combined with DBT. Improved synthesized images with experimentally verified acceptable diagnostic quality will be needed to eliminate double exposure during DBT-based screening.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the interpretive performance of synthetically reconstructed two-dimensional images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists trained in reading tomosynthesis examinations interpreted retrospectively, under two modes, 114 mammograms. One mode included the directly acquired full-field digital mammograms combined with DBT, and the other included synthetically reconstructed projection images combined with DBT. The reconstructed images do not require additional radiation exposure. The two modes were compared with respect to sensitivity, namely, recommendation to recall a breast with either a pathology-proven cancer (n = 48) or a high-risk lesion (n = 6), and specificity, namely, no recommendation to recall a breast not depicting an abnormality (n = 144) or depicting only benign abnormalities (n = 30). RESULTS: The average sensitivity for FFDM with DBT was 0.826, compared to 0.772 for synthetic FFDM with DBT (difference, 0.054; P = .017 and P = .053 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). The proportions of breasts with no or benign abnormalities recommended to be recalled were virtually the same: 0.298 and 0.297 for the two modalities, respectively (95% confidence intervals for the difference, -0.028 to 0.036 and -0.070 to 0.066 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). Sixteen additional clusters of microcalcifications ("positive" breasts) were missed by all readers combined when interpreting the mode with synthesized images versus FFDM. CONCLUSIONS: Lower sensitivity with comparable specificity was observed with the tested version of synthetically generated images compared to FFDM, both combined with DBT. Improved synthesized images with experimentally verified acceptable diagnostic quality will be needed to eliminate double exposure during DBT-based screening.
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: 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
Authors: David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Howard E Rockette; Margarita L Zuley; Jules H Sumkin; Denise M Chough; Christiane M Hakim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-03 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: Trafton Drew; Avi M Aizenman; Matthew B Thompson; Mark D Kovacs; Michael Trambert; Murray A Reicher; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-10-12
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: Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heang-Ping Chan; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Mark A Helvie; Scott Zelakiewicz; Andrea Schmitz; Mitra Noroozian; Chintana Paramagul; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Alexis V Nees; Colleen H Neal; Paul Carson; Yao Lu; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Jun Wei Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-07-07 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
Authors: Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105