Ji Soo Choi1, Boo-Kyung Han2, Eun Young Ko1, Eun Sook Ko1, Soo Yeon Hahn1, Jung Hee Shin1, Min Jung Kim3. 1. Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, South Korea. bkhan@skku.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interpretative performance of two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of T1-stage invasive breast cancers, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 214 patients. For each patient, FFDM and DBT were performed between January and June 2013, and SM was reconstructed from DBT data. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded visibility scores and morphologies of cancers. Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM were compared. Percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were compared for tumour size, and presence of calcifications for each observer. RESULTS: Observer sensitivity showed no difference for detection with SM and FFDM (P > 0.05). One observer showed a higher specificity (P = 0.02) and higher positive predictive value with SM (95 % CI 0.6-16.4), but the differences in the corresponding values between SM and FFDM for the other observers were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses according to tumour size and presence of calcifications, percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM are comparable for detecting T1-stage breast cancers. Therefore, our results indicate that SM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging. KEY POINTS: • DBT plus FFDM increases radiation dose compared to FFDM alone. • Detecting T1-stage cancers with only SM is comparable to detection with FFDM. • Two-dimensional SM may replace dose-requiring FFDM in DBT-based imaging.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interpretative performance of two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of T1-stage invasive breast cancers, compared to 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM). METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 214 patients. For each patient, FFDM and DBT were performed between January and June 2013, and SM was reconstructed from DBT data. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded visibility scores and morphologies of cancers. Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM were compared. Percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were compared for tumour size, and presence of calcifications for each observer. RESULTS: Observer sensitivity showed no difference for detection with SM and FFDM (P > 0.05). One observer showed a higher specificity (P = 0.02) and higher positive predictive value with SM (95 % CI 0.6-16.4), but the differences in the corresponding values between SM and FFDM for the other observers were not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses according to tumour size and presence of calcifications, percentages of detected cancers and visibility scores were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performances of SM and FFDM are comparable for detecting T1-stage breast cancers. Therefore, our results indicate that SM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging. KEY POINTS: • DBT plus FFDM increases radiation dose compared to FFDM alone. • Detecting T1-stage cancers with only SM is comparable to detection with FFDM. • Two-dimensional SM may replace dose-requiring FFDM in DBT-based imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
T1 stage; breast cancer; digital breast tomosynthesis; digital mammography; synthetic 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: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
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; 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 Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Jack Cuzick; Ivana Sestak; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis; Sharon Forsyth; Nigel J Bundred; John F Forbes; Hugh Bishop; Ian S Fentiman; William D George Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-12-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Caroline Preuss; Peter A Fasching; Christian R Loehberg; Michael P Lux; Julius Emons; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael Uder; Markus Mueller-Schimpfle Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 2.915