Advanced

One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection : do we need more?

Rodriguez-Ruiz, Alejandro; Gubern-Merida, Albert; Imhof-Tas, Mechli; Lardenoije, Susanne; Wanders, Alexander J.T.; Andersson, Ingvar LU ; Zackrisson, Sophia LU ; Lång, Kristina LU ; Dustler, Magnus LU and Karssemeijer, Nico, et al. (2017) In European Radiology p.1-11
Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. Materials and methods: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1–10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were... (More)

Purpose: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. Materials and methods: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1–10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. Results: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69–79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. Conclusion: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. Key points: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography.• One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT.• Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
@article{c66fa912-c302-4271-82f6-34ddd3e25150,
  abstract     = {<p>Purpose: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. Materials and methods: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1–10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. Results: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p&gt;0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69–79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. Conclusion: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. Key points: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography.• One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT.• Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening.</p>},
  author       = {Rodriguez-Ruiz, Alejandro and Gubern-Merida, Albert and Imhof-Tas, Mechli and Lardenoije, Susanne and Wanders, Alexander J.T. and Andersson, Ingvar and Zackrisson, Sophia and Lång, Kristina and Dustler, Magnus and Karssemeijer, Nico and Mann, Ritse M. and Sechopoulos, Ioannis},
  issn         = {0938-7994},
  keyword      = {Breast cancer,Digital breast tomosynthesis,Digital mammography,Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic,Receiver operating characteristic},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {12},
  pages        = {1--11},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {European Radiology},
  title        = {One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection : do we need more?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5167-3},
  year         = {2017},
}