OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the ability of radiologists to detect breast cancers using one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) and two-view digital mammography (DM) in an enriched population of diseased patients and benign and/or healthy patients. METHODS: All participants gave informed consent. The BT and DM examinations were performed with about the same average glandular dose to the breast. The study population comprised patients with subtle signs of malignancy seen on DM and/or ultrasonography. Ground truth was established by pathology, needle biopsy and/or by 1-year follow-up by mammography, which retrospectively resulted in 89 diseased breasts (1 breast per patient) with 95 malignant lesions and 96 healthy or benign breasts. Two experienced radiologists, who were not participants in the study, determined the locations of the malignant lesions. Five radiologists, experienced in mammography, interpreted the cases independently in a free-response study. The data were analysed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jackknife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) methods, regarding both readers and cases as random effects. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of BT was significantly better than that of DM (JAFROC: p=0.0031, ROC: p=0.0415). The average sensitivity of BT was higher than that of DM (∼90% vs ∼79%; 95% confidence interval of difference: 0.036, 0.108) while the average false-positive fraction was not significantly different (95% confidence interval of difference: -0.117, 0.010). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of BT was superior to DM in an enriched population.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the ability of radiologists to detect breast cancers using one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) and two-view digital mammography (DM) in an enriched population of diseased patients and benign and/or healthy patients. METHODS: All participants gave informed consent. The BT and DM examinations were performed with about the same average glandular dose to the breast. The study population comprised patients with subtle signs of malignancy seen on DM and/or ultrasonography. Ground truth was established by pathology, needle biopsy and/or by 1-year follow-up by mammography, which retrospectively resulted in 89 diseased breasts (1 breast per patient) with 95 malignant lesions and 96 healthy or benign breasts. Two experienced radiologists, who were not participants in the study, determined the locations of the malignant lesions. Five radiologists, experienced in mammography, interpreted the cases independently in a free-response study. The data were analysed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jackknife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) methods, regarding both readers and cases as random effects. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of BT was significantly better than that of DM (JAFROC: p=0.0031, ROC: p=0.0415). The average sensitivity of BT was higher than that of DM (∼90% vs ∼79%; 95% confidence interval of difference: 0.036, 0.108) while the average false-positive fraction was not significantly different (95% confidence interval of difference: -0.117, 0.010). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of BT was superior to DM in an enriched population.
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
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: Markus Håkansson; Sune Svensson; Sara Zachrisson; Angelica Svalkvist; Magnus Båth; Lars Gunnar Månsson Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 0.972
Authors: John M Boone; Alex L C Kwan; Kai Yang; George W Burkett; Karen K Lindfors; Thomas R Nelson Journal: J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.673
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
Authors: Maha H Helal; Sahar M Mansour; Mai Zaglol; Lamia A Salaleldin; Omniya M Nada; Marwa A Haggag Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 3.039
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