Assessing Radiologist Performance Using Combined Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Compared with Digital Mammography Alone: Results of a Multicenter, Multireader Trial

被引:352
作者
Rafferty, Elizabeth A. [1 ]
Park, Jeong Mi [2 ]
Philpotts, Liane E. [3 ]
Poplack, Steven P. [4 ]
Sumkin, Jules H. [5 ]
Halpern, Elkan F. [1 ]
Niklason, Loren T. [6 ]
机构
[1] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[2] Univ Iowa Hosp, Dept Radiol, Iowa City, IA USA
[3] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Yale New Haven Hosp, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
[4] Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Lebanon, NH 03766 USA
[5] Magee Womens Hosp, Dept Radiol, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[6] Hologic, Bedford, MA USA
关键词
SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER MORTALITY; CLASSIFICATION; RECOMMENDATION; POPULATION;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.12120674
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography versus digital mammography alone. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained at each accruing institution. Participating women gave written informed consent. Mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal digital mammographic and tomosynthesis images of both breasts were obtained from 1192 subjects. Two enriched reader studies were performed to compare digital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone. Study 1 comprised 312 cases (48 cancer cases) with images read by 12 radiologists; study 2, 312 cases (51 cancer cases) with 15 radiologists. Study 1 readers recorded only that an abnormality requiring recall was present; study 2 readers had additional training and recorded both lesion type and location. Diagnostic accuracy was compared with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Recall rates of noncancer cases, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values determined by analyzing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scores were compared for the two methods. Results: Diagnostic accuracy for combined tomosynthesis and digital mammography was superior to that of digital mammography alone. Average difference in area under the curve in study 1 was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7%, 10.8%; P < .001) and in study 2 was 6.8% (95% CI: 4.1%, 9.5%; P < .001). All 27 radiologists increased diagnostic accuracy with addition of tomosynthesis. Recall rates for noncancer cases for all readers significantly decreased with addition of tomosynthesis (range, 6%-67%; P < .001 for 25 readers, P < .03 for all readers). Increased sensitivity was largest for invasive cancers: 15% and 22% in studies 1 and 2 versus 3% for in situ cancers in both studies. Conclusion: Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography offers the dual benefit of significantly increased diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduced recall rates for noncancer cases. (C) RSNA, 2012
引用
收藏
页码:104 / 113
页数:10
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings [J].
Andersson, Ingvar ;
Ikeda, Debra M. ;
Zackrisson, Sophia ;
Ruschin, Mark ;
Svahn, Tony ;
Timberg, Pontus ;
Tingberg, Anders .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (12) :2817-2825
[2]   ANALYSIS OF CANCERS MISSED AT SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY [J].
BIRD, RE ;
WALLACE, TW ;
YANKASKAS, BC .
RADIOLOGY, 1992, 184 (03) :613-617
[3]   Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement [J].
Calonge, Ned ;
Petitti, Diana B. ;
DeWitt, Thomas G. ;
Dietrich, Allen J. ;
Gregory, Kimberly D. ;
Grossman, David ;
Isham, George ;
LeFevre, Michael L. ;
Leipzig, Rosanne M. ;
Marion, Lucy N. ;
Melnyk, Bernadette ;
Moyer, Virginia A. ;
Ockene, Judith K. ;
Sawaya, George F. ;
Schwartz, J. Sanford ;
Wilt, Timothy .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2009, 151 (10) :716-W236
[4]  
Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
[5]  
D'Orsi C.J., 2003, Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) breast imaging atlas
[6]   RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC RATING ANALYSIS - GENERALIZATION TO THE POPULATION OF READERS AND PATIENTS WITH THE JACKKNIFE METHOD [J].
DORFMAN, DD ;
BERBAUM, KS ;
METZ, CE .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1992, 27 (09) :723-731
[7]   Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study [J].
Gennaro, Gisella ;
Toledano, Alicia ;
di Maggio, Cosimo ;
Baldan, Enrica ;
Bezzon, Elisabetta ;
La Grassa, Manuela ;
Pescarini, Luigi ;
Polico, Ilaria ;
Proietti, Alessandro ;
Toffoli, Aida ;
Muzzio, Pier Carlo .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2010, 20 (07) :1545-1553
[8]   Is an ROC-type Response Truly Always Better Than a Binary Response in Observer Performance Studies? [J].
Gur, David ;
Bandos, Andriy I. ;
Rockette, Howard E. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Sumkin, Jules H. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2010, 17 (05) :639-645
[9]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Observer Performance Study [J].
Gur, David ;
Abrams, Gordon S. ;
Chough, Denise M. ;
Ganott, Marie A. ;
Hakim, Christiane M. ;
Perrin, Ronald L. ;
Rathfon, Grace Y. ;
Sumkin, Jules H. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Bandos, Andriy I. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 193 (02) :586-591
[10]   Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis [J].
Hillis, Stephen L. ;
Berbaum, Kevin S. ;
Metz, Charles E. .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2008, 15 (05) :647-661