Margarita L Zuley1, Ben Guo, Victor J Catullo, Denise M Chough, Amy E Kelly, Amy H Lu, Grace Y Rathfon, Marion Lee Spangler, Jules H Sumkin, Luisa P Wallace, Andriy I Bandos. 1. From the Department of Radiology, Magee Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (M.L.Z., V.J.C., D.M.C., A.E.K., A.H.L., G.Y.R., M.L.S., J.H.S., L.P.W.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa (M.L.Z., V.J.C., D.M.C., A.E.K., A.H.L., G.Y.R., M.L.S., J.H.S., L.P.W.); and Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (B.G., A.I.B.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess interpretation performance and radiation dose when two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) images versus standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images are used alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A fully crossed, mode-balanced multicase (n = 123), multireader (n = 8), retrospective observer performance study was performed by using deidentified images acquired between 2008 and 2011 with institutional review board approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols, during which each patient signed informed consent. The cohort included 36 cases of biopsy-proven cancer, 35 cases of biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 52 normal or benign cases (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] score of 1 or 2) with negative 1-year follow-up results. Accuracy of sequentially reported probability of malignancy ratings and seven-category forced BI-RADS ratings was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: Probability of malignancy-based mean AUCs for SM and FFDM images alone was 0.894 and 0.889, respectively (difference, -0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.062, 0.054; P = .85). Mean AUC for SM with tomosynthesis and FFDM with tomosynthesis was 0.916 and 0.939, respectively (difference, 0.023; 95% CI: -0.011, 0.057; P = .19). In terms of the reader-specific AUCs, five readers performed better with SM alone versus FFDM alone, and all eight readers performed better with combined FFDM and tomosynthesis (absolute differences from 0.003 to 0.052). Similar results were obtained by using a nonparametric analysis of forced BI-RADS ratings. CONCLUSION: SM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis is comparable in performance to FFDM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis and may eliminate the need for FFDM as part of a routine clinical study.
PURPOSE: To assess interpretation performance and radiation dose when two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) images versus standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images are used alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A fully crossed, mode-balanced multicase (n = 123), multireader (n = 8), retrospective observer performance study was performed by using deidentified images acquired between 2008 and 2011 with institutional review board approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols, during which each patient signed informed consent. The cohort included 36 cases of biopsy-proven cancer, 35 cases of biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 52 normal or benign cases (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] score of 1 or 2) with negative 1-year follow-up results. Accuracy of sequentially reported probability of malignancy ratings and seven-category forced BI-RADS ratings was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) in the random-reader analysis. RESULTS: Probability of malignancy-based mean AUCs for SM and FFDM images alone was 0.894 and 0.889, respectively (difference, -0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.062, 0.054; P = .85). Mean AUC for SM with tomosynthesis and FFDM with tomosynthesis was 0.916 and 0.939, respectively (difference, 0.023; 95% CI: -0.011, 0.057; P = .19). In terms of the reader-specific AUCs, five readers performed better with SM alone versus FFDM alone, and all eight readers performed better with combined FFDM and tomosynthesis (absolute differences from 0.003 to 0.052). Similar results were obtained by using a nonparametric analysis of forced BI-RADS ratings. CONCLUSION: SM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis is comparable in performance to FFDM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis and may eliminate the need for FFDM as part of a routine clinical study.
Authors: Daniela Bernardi; Stefano Ciatto; Marco Pellegrini; Paolina Tuttobene; Carmine Fanto'; Marvi Valentini; Stefano Di Michele; Paolo Peterlongo; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-01-22 Impact factor: 4.872
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: David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.173
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
Authors: Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Colleen H Neal; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Christiane M Hakim; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy E Kelly; Dilip D Shinde; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark C Murphy; Louise Coffey; Ailbhe C O'Neill; Cecily Quinn; Ruth Prichard; Sorcha McNally Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 1.568
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