Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images.

Radiology

From the Department of Radiology, Magee Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (M.L.Z., V.J.C., D.M.C., A.E.K., A.H.L., G.Y.R., M.L.S., J.H.S., L.P.W.); Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa (M.L.Z., V.J.C., D.M.C., A.E.K., A.H.L., G.Y.R., M.L.S., J.H.S., L.P.W.); and Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (B.G., A.I.B.).

Published: June 2014

Purpose: To assess interpretation performance and radiation dose when two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) images versus standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images are used alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis images.

Materials And Methods: A fully crossed, mode-balanced multicase (n = 123), multireader (n = 8), retrospective observer performance study was performed by using deidentified images acquired between 2008 and 2011 with institutional review board approved, HIPAA-compliant protocols, during which each patient signed informed consent. The cohort included 36 cases of biopsy-proven cancer, 35 cases of biopsy-proven benign lesions, and 52 normal or benign cases (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] score of 1 or 2) with negative 1-year follow-up results. Accuracy of sequentially reported probability of malignancy ratings and seven-category forced BI-RADS ratings was evaluated by using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) in the random-reader analysis.

Results: Probability of malignancy-based mean AUCs for SM and FFDM images alone was 0.894 and 0.889, respectively (difference, -0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.062, 0.054; P = .85). Mean AUC for SM with tomosynthesis and FFDM with tomosynthesis was 0.916 and 0.939, respectively (difference, 0.023; 95% CI: -0.011, 0.057; P = .19). In terms of the reader-specific AUCs, five readers performed better with SM alone versus FFDM alone, and all eight readers performed better with combined FFDM and tomosynthesis (absolute differences from 0.003 to 0.052). Similar results were obtained by using a nonparametric analysis of forced BI-RADS ratings.

Conclusion: SM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis is comparable in performance to FFDM alone or in combination with tomosynthesis and may eliminate the need for FFDM as part of a routine clinical study.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263638PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131530DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

combination tomosynthesis
12
two-dimensional synthesized
8
ffdm images
8
cases biopsy-proven
8
forced bi-rads
8
ffdm tomosynthesis
8
readers performed
8
performed better
8
tomosynthesis
7
ffdm
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!