The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Sophia Zackrisson, MD, PhD. Photo.

Sophia Zackrisson

Manager

Sophia Zackrisson, MD, PhD. Photo.

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

Author

  • Alejandro Rodriguez-Ruiz
  • Albert Gubern-Merida
  • Mechli Imhof-Tas
  • Susanne Lardenoije
  • Alexander J.T. Wanders
  • Ingvar Andersson
  • Sophia Zackrisson
  • Kristina Lång
  • Magnus Dustler
  • Nico Karssemeijer
  • Ritse M. Mann
  • Ioannis Sechopoulos
Show all

Summary, in English

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.

Department/s

  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö
  • BioCARE: Biomarkers in Cancer Medicine improving Health Care, Education and Innovation
  • Tumor microenvironment
  • Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö

Publishing year

2018-05

Language

English

Pages

1938-1948

Publication/Series

European Radiology

Volume

28

Issue

5

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Springer

Topic

  • Cancer and Oncology
  • Medical Image Processing

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Digital breast tomosynthesis
  • Digital mammography
  • Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic
  • Receiver operating characteristic

Status

Published

Research group

  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö
  • Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 0938-7994