Paola Clauser1, Georg Nagl2, Thomas H Helbich3, Katja Pinker-Domenig4, Michael Weber5, Panagiotis Kapetas4, Maria Bernathova4, Pascal A T Baltzer4. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: paola.clauser@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Department for Radiology and Interventional Radiology, Landesklinikum Horn, Spitalgasse 10, 3580 Horn, Austria. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: thomas.helbich@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), with a wide scan-angle, compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. METHODS: IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective study. We selected 150 FFDM and DBT (50 benign and 50 malignant histologically verified microcalcifications, 50 cases classified as BI-RADS 1). Four radiologists evaluated, in separate sessions and blinded to patients' history and histology, the presence of microcalcifications. Cases with microcalcifications were assessed for visibility, characteristics, and grade of suspicion using BI-RADS categories. Detection rate and diagnostic performance were calculated. Visibility, lesions' characteristics and reading time were analysed. RESULTS: Detection rate and visibility were good for both FFDM and DBT, without intra-reader differences (P=0.510). Inter-reader differences were detected (P<0.018). Only two lesions were not detected by any reader on either FFDM or DBT. Diagnostic performance with DBT was as good as that of FFDM, but a significant inter-reader difference was found (P=0.041). High inter-reader variability in the use of the descriptors was found. Reading time for DBT was almost twice that for FFDM (44 and 25s, respectively). CONCLUSION: Wide scan-angle DBT enabled the detection and characterization of microcalcifications with no significant differences from FFDM. Inter-reader variability was seen.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), with a wide scan-angle, compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. METHODS: IRB approval was obtained for this retrospective study. We selected 150 FFDM and DBT (50 benign and 50 malignant histologically verified microcalcifications, 50 cases classified as BI-RADS 1). Four radiologists evaluated, in separate sessions and blinded to patients' history and histology, the presence of microcalcifications. Cases with microcalcifications were assessed for visibility, characteristics, and grade of suspicion using BI-RADS categories. Detection rate and diagnostic performance were calculated. Visibility, lesions' characteristics and reading time were analysed. RESULTS: Detection rate and visibility were good for both FFDM and DBT, without intra-reader differences (P=0.510). Inter-reader differences were detected (P<0.018). Only two lesions were not detected by any reader on either FFDM or DBT. Diagnostic performance with DBT was as good as that of FFDM, but a significant inter-reader difference was found (P=0.041). High inter-reader variability in the use of the descriptors was found. Reading time for DBT was almost twice that for FFDM (44 and 25s, respectively). CONCLUSION: Wide scan-angle DBT enabled the detection and characterization of microcalcifications with no significant differences from FFDM. Inter-reader variability was seen.
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: Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Deborah O Jeffries; Katherine A Klein; Colleen H Neal; Mitra Noroozian; Chintana Paramagul; Marilyn A Roubidoux Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Andrzej Lorek; Katarzyna Steinhof-Radwańska; Anna Barczyk-Gutkowska; Wojciech Zarębski; Piotr Paleń; Karol Szyluk; Joanna Lorek; Anna Grażyńska; Paweł Niemiec; Iwona Gisterek Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Suzan Vreemann; Jan C M van Zelst; Margrethe Schlooz-Vries; Peter Bult; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Nico Karssemeijer; Albert Gubern-Mérida; Ritse M Mann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 6.466