Won Hwa Kim1, Jung Min Chang2, Hyeong-Gon Moon3, Ann Yi4, Hye Ryoung Koo5, Hye Mi Gweon6, Woo Kyung Moon1. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea. imchangjm@gmail.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Gangnan Healthcare Center, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography in women with known breast cancers. METHODS: Three radiologists independently reviewed image sets of 172 patients with 184 cancers; mammography alone, DBT plus mammography and MRI plus mammography, and scored for cancer probability using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC), which allows diagnostic performance estimation using single lesion as a statistical unit in a cancer-only population, was used. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared using the McNemar and Fisher-exact tests. RESULTS: The JAFROC figures of merit (FOMs) was lower in DBT plus mammography (0.937) than MRI plus mammography (0.978, P = 0.0006) but higher than mammography alone (0.900, P = 0 .0013). The sensitivity was lower in DBT plus mammography (88.2 %) than MRI plus mammography (97.8 %) but higher than mammography alone (78.3 %, both P < 0 .0001). The PPV was significantly higher in DBT plus mammography (93.3 %) than MRI plus mammography (89.6 %, P = 0 .0282). CONCLUSIONS: DBT provided lower diagnostic performance than MRI as an adjunctive imaging to mammography. However, DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography and higher PPV than MRI. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus mammography was compared with MRI plus mammography. • DBT had lower sensitivity and higher PPV than MRI. • DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography in women with known breast cancers. METHODS: Three radiologists independently reviewed image sets of 172 patients with 184 cancers; mammography alone, DBT plus mammography and MRI plus mammography, and scored for cancer probability using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC), which allows diagnostic performance estimation using single lesion as a statistical unit in a cancer-only population, was used. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared using the McNemar and Fisher-exact tests. RESULTS: The JAFROC figures of merit (FOMs) was lower in DBT plus mammography (0.937) than MRI plus mammography (0.978, P = 0.0006) but higher than mammography alone (0.900, P = 0 .0013). The sensitivity was lower in DBT plus mammography (88.2 %) than MRI plus mammography (97.8 %) but higher than mammography alone (78.3 %, both P < 0 .0001). The PPV was significantly higher in DBT plus mammography (93.3 %) than MRI plus mammography (89.6 %, P = 0 .0282). CONCLUSIONS: DBT provided lower diagnostic performance than MRI as an adjunctive imaging to mammography. However, DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography and higher PPV than MRI. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus mammography was compared with MRI plus mammography. • DBT had lower sensitivity and higher PPV than MRI. • DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms/pathology; Imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Sensitivity and specificity; Three-dimensional, mammography
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: Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Werner Bader; Pascal Baltzer; Maria Bernathova; Michael Fuchsjäger; Michael Golatta; Thomas H Helbich; Karin Hellerhoff; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Claudia Kurtz; Alexander Mundinger; Katja C Siegmann-Luz; Per Skaane; Chistine Solbach; Stefanie Weigel Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Dana S Al-Mousa; Maram Alakhras; Kelly M Spuur; Haytham Alewaidat; Mohammad Rawashdeh; Mostafa Abdelrahman; Patrick C Brennan Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2020-05-18