OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic value of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus two-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone, and versus a combined reading of both modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The datasets of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view FFDM of abnormal mammograms in 144 consecutive women admitted for diagnostic workup with clinical signs and symptoms (n = 78) or recalled from screening (n = 66) were read alone and in a combined setting. The malignant or benign nature of the lesions was established by histologic analysis of biopsied lesions or by 12-16-month follow-up. RESULTS: Eighty-six of the 144 patients were found to have breast cancer. The BI-RADS categories for one-view digital breast tomosynthesis were significantly better than those for two-view FFDM (p < 0.001) and were equal to those of the combined reading in both women admitted for diagnostic workup and women recalled from screening. The sensitivity and negative predictive values of digital breast tomosynthesis were superior to those of FFDM in fatty and dense breasts overall and in women admitted for diagnostic workup and in women recalled from screening. Only 11% of digital breast tomosynthesis examinations required additional imaging, compared with 23% of FFDMs. CONCLUSION: In patients with abnormal mammograms, one-view digital breast tomosynthesis had better sensitivity and negative predictive value than did FFDM in patients with fatty and dense breasts. They also suggest that digital breast tomosynthesis would likely increase the predictive values if incorporated in routine screening.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic value of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus two-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone, and versus a combined reading of both modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The datasets of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view FFDM of abnormal mammograms in 144 consecutive women admitted for diagnostic workup with clinical signs and symptoms (n = 78) or recalled from screening (n = 66) were read alone and in a combined setting. The malignant or benign nature of the lesions was established by histologic analysis of biopsied lesions or by 12-16-month follow-up. RESULTS: Eighty-six of the 144 patients were found to have breast cancer. The BI-RADS categories for one-view digital breast tomosynthesis were significantly better than those for two-view FFDM (p < 0.001) and were equal to those of the combined reading in both women admitted for diagnostic workup and women recalled from screening. The sensitivity and negative predictive values of digital breast tomosynthesis were superior to those of FFDM in fatty and dense breasts overall and in women admitted for diagnostic workup and in women recalled from screening. Only 11% of digital breast tomosynthesis examinations required additional imaging, compared with 23% of FFDMs. CONCLUSION: In patients with abnormal mammograms, one-view digital breast tomosynthesis had better sensitivity and negative predictive value than did FFDM in patients with fatty and dense breasts. They also suggest that digital breast tomosynthesis would likely increase the predictive values if incorporated in routine screening.