OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical performance of three-dimensional stereoscopic digital mammography (3DsDM) compared with two-dimensional digital mammography (2DDM) for breast lesion diagnosis with jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) observer study. METHODS: 40 pairs of standard-dose 2DDM and their 3DsDM images were used for an observer performance study. A total of 18 lesions were identified as the reference standard of actionable breast lesions (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 or more) by two breast radiologists. Ratings and locations of "lesions" determined by observers were utilized for assessing the statistical significance of differences between eight radiologists' performances with the 2DDM images and with the 3DsDM images in jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The average figure-of-merit values for all radiologists increased to a statistically significant degree, from 0.859 with the 2DDM images to 0.936 with the 3DsDM images (p < 0.001). The average sensitivity for detecting actionable lesions was improved from 74.3 to 92.4% at a false-positive rate of 0.2 per case by use of the 3DsDM images. The mean reading time per case with 2DDM images was not significantly different from that with 3DsDM images. CONCLUSION: The use of 3DsDM would improve the observer performance for breast lesion without considerably extending the reading time. Advances in knowledge: Use of 3DsDM improves radiologists' performance for breast lesion detection.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical performance of three-dimensional stereoscopic digital mammography (3DsDM) compared with two-dimensional digital mammography (2DDM) for breast lesion diagnosis with jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC) observer study. METHODS: 40 pairs of standard-dose 2DDM and their 3DsDM images were used for an observer performance study. A total of 18 lesions were identified as the reference standard of actionable breast lesions (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 or more) by two breast radiologists. Ratings and locations of "lesions" determined by observers were utilized for assessing the statistical significance of differences between eight radiologists' performances with the 2DDM images and with the 3DsDM images in jackknife free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The average figure-of-merit values for all radiologists increased to a statistically significant degree, from 0.859 with the 2DDM images to 0.936 with the 3DsDM images (p < 0.001). The average sensitivity for detecting actionable lesions was improved from 74.3 to 92.4% at a false-positive rate of 0.2 per case by use of the 3DsDM images. The mean reading time per case with 2DDM images was not significantly different from that with 3DsDM images. CONCLUSION: The use of 3DsDM would improve the observer performance for breast lesion without considerably extending the reading time. Advances in knowledge: Use of 3DsDM improves radiologists' performance for breast lesion detection.
Authors: Stephen L Rose; Andra L Tidwell; Louis J Bujnoch; Anne C Kushwaha; Amy S Nordmann; Russell Sexton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gautam S Muralidhar; Mia K Markey; Alan C Bovik; Tamara Miner Haygood; Tanya W Stephens; William R Geiser; Naveen Garg; Beatriz E Adrada; Basak E Dogan; Selin Carkaci; Raunak Khisty; Gary J Whitman Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.056
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: Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Samantha P Zuckerman; Emily F Conant; Brad M Keller; Andrew D A Maidment; Bruno Barufaldi; Susan P Weinstein; Marie Synnestvedt; Elizabeth S McDonald Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105