OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of standard supplementary views and GE digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for assessment of soft-tissue mammographic abnormalities. METHODS: Women recalled for further assessment of soft-tissue abnormalities were recruited and received standard supplementary views (typically spot compression views) and two-view GE DBT. The added value of DBT in the assessment process was determined by analysing data collected prospectively by radiologists working up the cases. Following anonymization of cases, there was also a retrospective multireader review. The readers first read bilateral standard two-view digital mammography (DM) together with the supplementary mammographic views and gave a combined score for suspicion of malignancy on a five-point scale. The same readers then read bilateral standard two-view DM together with two-view DBT. Pathology data were obtained. Differences were assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The study population was 342 lesions in 322 patients. The final diagnosis was malignant in 113 cases (33%) and benign/normal in 229 cases (67%). In the prospective analysis, the performance of two-view DM plus DBT was at least equivalent to the performance of two-view DM and standard mammographic supplementary views-the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.946 and 0.922, respectively, which did not reach statistical significance. Similar results were obtained for the retrospective review-AUC was 0.900 (DBT) and 0.873 (supplementary views), which did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of GE DBT in the assessment of screen detected soft-tissue abnormalities is equivalent to the use of standard supplementary mammographic views. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The vast majority of evidence relating to the use of DBT has been gathered from research using Hologic equipment. This study provides evidence for the use of the commercially available GE DBT system demonstrating that it is at least equivalent to supplementary mammographic views in the assessment of soft-tissue screen-detected abnormalities.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of standard supplementary views and GE digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for assessment of soft-tissue mammographic abnormalities. METHODS:Women recalled for further assessment of soft-tissue abnormalities were recruited and received standard supplementary views (typically spot compression views) and two-view GE DBT. The added value of DBT in the assessment process was determined by analysing data collected prospectively by radiologists working up the cases. Following anonymization of cases, there was also a retrospective multireader review. The readers first read bilateral standard two-view digital mammography (DM) together with the supplementary mammographic views and gave a combined score for suspicion of malignancy on a five-point scale. The same readers then read bilateral standard two-view DM together with two-view DBT. Pathology data were obtained. Differences were assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The study population was 342 lesions in 322 patients. The final diagnosis was malignant in 113 cases (33%) and benign/normal in 229 cases (67%). In the prospective analysis, the performance of two-view DM plus DBT was at least equivalent to the performance of two-view DM and standard mammographic supplementary views-the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.946 and 0.922, respectively, which did not reach statistical significance. Similar results were obtained for the retrospective review-AUC was 0.900 (DBT) and 0.873 (supplementary views), which did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of GE DBT in the assessment of screen detected soft-tissue abnormalities is equivalent to the use of standard supplementary mammographic views. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The vast majority of evidence relating to the use of DBT has been gathered from research using Hologic equipment. This study provides evidence for the use of the commercially available GE DBT system demonstrating that it is at least equivalent to supplementary mammographic views in the assessment of soft-tissue screen-detected abnormalities.
Authors: Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel A Craig; Tanya L Hoskins; Tara L Henrichsen; Emily C Bendel; Stephanie R Brandt; Jay Mandrekar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J C Morel; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; C Peacock; D R Evans; R Rahim; J Goligher; M J Michell Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen Gc Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Hema Purushothaman; Celia Strudley; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jaensch; Astrid Hacker; Sabina Wulz-Horber; Thomas Mertelmeier; Dieter Hölzel Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Lourdes Carrera; Jessica Beltrán; Margarita Posso; David Rigau; Annette Lebeau; Axel Gräwingholt; Xavier Castells; Miranda Langendam; Elsa Pérez; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Ruben Van Engen; Elena Parmelli; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Pablo Alonso-Coello Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 4.452