Luca A Carbonaro1, Giovanni Di Leo1, Paola Clauser2, Rubina M Trimboli1, Nicola Verardi1, Maria P Fedeli3, Rossano Girometti4, Alfredo Tafà5, Paola Bruscoli5, Gianni Saguatti5, Massimo Bazzocchi4, Francesco Sardanelli6. 1. Radiology Unit, Research Hospital Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy. 2. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: clauser.p@hotmail.it. 3. Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. 4. Institute of Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 5. Unità Operativa di Senologia, Ospedale Maggiore, AUSL Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Radiology Unit, Research Hospital Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact on recall rate (RR) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) associated with digital mammography (DM+DBT), compared to DM alone, evaluate the impact of double reading (DR) and review the literature. METHODS: Ethics committees approved this multicenter study. Patients gave informed consent. Women recalled from population-based screening reading were included. Reference standard was histology and/or ≥ 1 year follow up. Negative multiple assessment was considered for patients lost at follow up. Two blinded readers (R1, R2) evaluated first DM and subsequently DM+DBT. RR, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), were calculated for R1, R2, and DR. Cohen κ and χ(2) were used for R1-R2 agreement and RR related to breast density. RESULTS: We included 280 cases (41 malignancies, 66 benign lesions, and 173 negative examinations). The RR reduction was 43% (R1), 58% (R2), 43% (DR). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were: 93%, 67%, 71%, 33%, 98% for R1; 88%, 73%, 75%, 36%, 97% for R2; 98%, 55%, 61%, 27%, 99% for DR. The agreement was higher for DM+DBT (κ=0.459 versus κ=0.234). Reduction in RR was independent from breast density (p=0.992). CONCLUSION: DBT was confirmed to reduce RR, as shown by 13 of 15 previous studies (reported reduction 6-82%, median 31%). This reduction is confirmed when using DR. DBT allows an increased inter-reader agreement.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the impact on recall rate (RR) of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) associated with digital mammography (DM+DBT), compared to DM alone, evaluate the impact of double reading (DR) and review the literature. METHODS: Ethics committees approved this multicenter study. Patients gave informed consent. Women recalled from population-based screening reading were included. Reference standard was histology and/or ≥ 1 year follow up. Negative multiple assessment was considered for patients lost at follow up. Two blinded readers (R1, R2) evaluated first DM and subsequently DM+DBT. RR, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), were calculated for R1, R2, and DR. Cohen κ and χ(2) were used for R1-R2 agreement and RR related to breast density. RESULTS: We included 280 cases (41 malignancies, 66 benign lesions, and 173 negative examinations). The RR reduction was 43% (R1), 58% (R2), 43% (DR). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV and NPV were: 93%, 67%, 71%, 33%, 98% for R1; 88%, 73%, 75%, 36%, 97% for R2; 98%, 55%, 61%, 27%, 99% for DR. The agreement was higher for DM+DBT (κ=0.459 versus κ=0.234). Reduction in RR was independent from breast density (p=0.992). CONCLUSION: DBT was confirmed to reduce RR, as shown by 13 of 15 previous studies (reported reduction 6-82%, median 31%). This reduction is confirmed when using DR. DBT allows an increased inter-reader agreement.
Authors: Xuan-Anh Phi; Alberto Tagliafico; Nehmat Houssami; Marcel J W Greuter; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 4.430