Literature DB >> 28287917

Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?

Lorraine Tucker1, Fiona J Gilbert1, Susan M Astley1, Amanda Dibden1, Archana Seth1, Juliet Morel1, Sara Bundred1, Janet Litherland1, Herman Klassen1, Gerald Lip1, Hema Purushothaman1, Hilary M Dobson1, Linda McClure1, Philippa Skippage1, Katherine Stoner1, Caroline Kissin1, Ursula Beetles1, Yit Yoong Lim1, Emma Hurley1, Jane Goligher1, Rumana Rahim1, Tanja J Gagliardi1, Tamara Suaris1, Stephen W Duffy1.   

Abstract

Purpose To assess whether individual reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional (2D) mammography varies with number of years of experience or volume of 2D mammograms read. Materials and Methods After written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years; mean age, 56 years) were recruited into the TOMMY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program), an ethically approved, multicenter, multireader, retrospective reading study, between July 2011 and March 2013. Each case was read prospectively for clinical assessment and to establish ground truth. A retrospective reading data set of 7060 cases was created and randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT images, without access to previous examinations. Readers (19 radiologists, three advanced practitioner radiographers, and two breast clinicians) who had 3-25 (median, 10) years of experience in the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program and read 5000-13 000 (median, 8000) cases per annum were included in this study. Specificity was analyzed according to reader type and years and volume of experience, and then both specificity and sensitivity were analyzed by matched inference. The median duration of experience (10 years) was used as the cutoff point for comparison of reader performance. Results Specificity improved with the addition of DBT for all readers. This was significant for all staff groups (56% vs 68% and 49% vs 67% [P < .0001] for radiologists and advanced practitioner radiographers, respectively; 46% vs 55% [P = .02] for breast clinicians). Sensitivity was improved for 19 of 24 (79%) readers and was significantly higher for those with less than 10 years of experience (91% vs 86%; P = .03) and those with total mammographic experience of fewer than 80 000 cases (88% vs 86%; P = .03). Conclusion The addition of DBT to conventional 2D screening mammography improved specificity for all readers, but the gain in sensitivity was greater for readers with less than 10 years of experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28287917     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017151936

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana P Lourenco; Grayson L Baird; Robert C Ward; A Stanley Maynard; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Eun Young Chae; Hak Hee Kim; Ji-Wook Jeong; Seung-Hoon Chae; Sooyeul Lee; Young-Wook Choi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

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

4.  Comparison of radiographs, tomosynthesis and CT with metal artifact reduction for the detection of hip prosthetic loosening.

Authors:  Romain Gillet; Pedro Teixeira; Chloé Bonarelli; Henry Coudane; François Sirveaux; Mathias Louis; Alain Blum
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A Novel Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Formation After Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy Using Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Kyota Ishibashi; Eiji Sasaki; Edward Wijaya; Shohei Yamauchi; Shizuka Sasaki; Yuka Kimura; Yuji Yamamoto; Takashi Shimbo; Katsuto Tamai; Yasuyuki Ishibashi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 4.903

6.  Improving Accuracy and Efficiency with Concurrent Use of Artificial Intelligence for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Alicia Y Toledano; Senthil Periaswamy; Sergei V Fotin; Jonathan Go; Justin E Boatsman; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister
Journal:  Radiol Artif Intell       Date:  2019-07-31

7.  A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial.

Authors:  Hildegunn S Aase; Åsne S Holen; Kristin Pedersen; Nehmat Houssami; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Sofie Sebuødegård; Berit Hanestad; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Authors:  A Hadjipanteli; M Kontos; A Constantinidou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.989

Review 9.  Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements.

Authors:  Annette M Schmid; David L Raunig; Colin G Miller; Richard C Walovitch; Robert W Ford; Michael O'Connor; Guenther Brueggenwerth; Josy Breuer; Liz Kuney; Robert R Ford
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 1.778

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.