RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment of lesions in two-view digital mammogram (DM) to two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) without DM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent, two-view DBTs were acquired from 134 subjects and the corresponding DMs were collected retrospectively. The study included 125 subjects with 61 malignant (size: 3.9-36.9 mm, median: 13.4 mm) and 81 benign lesions (size: 4.8-43.8 mm, median: 12.0 mm), and 9 normal subjects. The cases in the two modalities were read independently by six experienced Mammography Quality Standards Act radiologists in a fully crossed counterbalanced manner. The readers were blinded to the prevalence of malignant, benign, or normal cases and were asked to assess the lesions based on the BI-RADS lexicon. The ratings were analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic methodology. RESULTS: Lesion conspicuity was significantly higher (P << .0001) and fewer lesion margins were considered obscured in DBT. The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the six readers increased significantly (P = .0001) from 0.783 (range: 0.723-0.886) for DM to 0.911 (range: 0.884-0.936) for DBT. Of the 366 ratings for malignant lesions, 343 on DBT and 278 on DM were rated as BI-RADS 4a and above. Of the 486 ratings for benign lesions, 220 on DBT and 206 on DM were rated as BI-RADS 4a and above. On average, 17.8% (65 of 366) more malignant lesions and 2.9% (14 of 486) more benign lesions would be recommended for biopsy using DBT. The inter-radiologist variability was reduced significantly. CONCLUSION: With DBT alone, the BI-RADS assessment of breast lesions and inter-radiologist reliability were significantly improved compared to DM.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment of lesions in two-view digital mammogram (DM) to two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) without DM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent, two-view DBTs were acquired from 134 subjects and the corresponding DMs were collected retrospectively. The study included 125 subjects with 61 malignant (size: 3.9-36.9 mm, median: 13.4 mm) and 81 benign lesions (size: 4.8-43.8 mm, median: 12.0 mm), and 9 normal subjects. The cases in the two modalities were read independently by six experienced Mammography Quality Standards Act radiologists in a fully crossed counterbalanced manner. The readers were blinded to the prevalence of malignant, benign, or normal cases and were asked to assess the lesions based on the BI-RADS lexicon. The ratings were analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic methodology. RESULTS: Lesion conspicuity was significantly higher (P << .0001) and fewer lesion margins were considered obscured in DBT. The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the six readers increased significantly (P = .0001) from 0.783 (range: 0.723-0.886) for DM to 0.911 (range: 0.884-0.936) for DBT. Of the 366 ratings for malignant lesions, 343 on DBT and 278 on DM were rated as BI-RADS 4a and above. Of the 486 ratings for benign lesions, 220 on DBT and 206 on DM were rated as BI-RADS 4a and above. On average, 17.8% (65 of 366) more malignant lesions and 2.9% (14 of 486) more benign lesions would be recommended for biopsy using DBT. The inter-radiologist variability was reduced significantly. CONCLUSION: With DBT alone, the BI-RADS assessment of breast lesions and inter-radiologist reliability were significantly improved compared to DM.
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: Paola Clauser; Georg Nagl; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Michael Weber; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Gisella Gennaro; R Edward Hendrick; Alicia Toledano; Jean R Paquelet; Elisabetta Bezzon; Roberta Chersevani; Cosimo di Maggio; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Enrica Baldan; Fabio Pomerri; Pier Carlo Muzzio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert Hodgson; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Susan C Harvey; Mary Edwards; Javed Shaikh; Mick Arber; Julie Glanville Journal: Breast Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
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