Literature DB >> 29319344

Clinical performance metrics of 3D stereoscopic digital mammography compared with 2D digital mammography: observer study.

Akiko Daidoji1,2, Takatoshi Aoki1, Seiichi Murakami1, Mari Miyata1, Masami Fujii1, Takefumi Katsuki3, Yuzuru Inoue3, Yuko Tashima4, Yoshika Nagata4, Keiji Hirata3, Fumihiro Tanaka4, Yukunori Korogi1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29319344      PMCID: PMC6223292          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170908

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  13 in total

1.  Stereomammography: evaluation of depth perception using a virtual 3D cursor.

Authors:  M M Goodsitt; H P Chan; L Hadjiiski
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation.

Authors:  Dev P Chakraborty; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.

Authors:  Matthew G Wallis; Elin Moa; Federica Zanca; Karin Leifland; Mats Danielsson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study.

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

5.  Stereoscopic interpretation of low-dose breast tomosynthesis projection images.

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

6.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.

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

7.  Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.

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

8.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

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

9.  Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program.

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

10.  Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.