Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings

被引:264
作者
Andersson, Ingvar [1 ]
Ikeda, Debra M. [2 ]
Zackrisson, Sophia [1 ]
Ruschin, Mark [3 ,4 ]
Svahn, Tony [3 ]
Timberg, Pontus [3 ]
Tingberg, Anders [3 ]
机构
[1] Malmo Univ Hosp, Diagnost Ctr Imaging & Funct Med, SE-20502 Malmo, Sweden
[2] Stanford Univ, Stanford Adv Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[3] Lund Univ, Malmo Univ Hosp, Dept Med Radiat Phys, Malmo, Sweden
[4] Princess Margaret Hosp, Univ Hlth Network, Dept Radiat Phys, Toronto, ON M4X 1K9, Canada
关键词
Breast; Tomosynthesis; Breast cancer;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9
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
The main purpose was to compare breast cancer visibility in one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) to cancer visibility in one- or two-view digital mammography (DM). Thirty-six patients were selected on the basis of subtle signs of breast cancer on DM. One-view BT was performed with the same compression angle as the DM image in which the finding was least/not visible. On BT, 25 projections images were acquired over an angular range of 50 degrees, with double the dose of one-view DM. Two expert breast imagers classified one- and two-view DM, and BT findings for cancer visibility and BIRADS cancer probability in a non-blinded consensus study. Forty breast cancers were found in 37 breasts. The cancers were rated more visible on BT compared to one-view and two-view DM in 22 and 11 cases, respectively, (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Comparing one-view DM to one-view BT, 21 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). Comparing two-view DM to one-view BT, 12 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). The results indicate that the cancer visibility on BT is superior to DM, which suggests that BT may have a higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection.
引用
收藏
页码:2817 / 2825
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
[21]  
Orman J, 2006, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V4046, P175
[22]   Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening [J].
Pisano, ED ;
Gatsonis, C ;
Hendrick, E ;
Yaffe, M ;
Baum, JK ;
Acharyya, S ;
Conant, EF ;
Fajardo, LL ;
Bassett, L ;
D'Orsi, C ;
Jong, R ;
Rebner, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2005, 353 (17) :1773-1783
[23]   Digital breast tomosynthesis: Initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography [J].
Poplack, Steven P. ;
Tosteson, Tor D. ;
Kogel, Christine A. ;
Nagy, Helene M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2007, 189 (03) :616-623
[24]  
RAFFERTY EA, 2003, ADV DIGITAL RADIOGRA, P219
[25]   Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: Free response human observer studies [J].
Ruschin, Mark ;
Timberg, Pontus ;
Bath, Magnus ;
Hemdal, Bengt ;
Svahn, Tony ;
Saunders, Rob S. ;
Samei, Ehsan ;
Andersson, Ingvar ;
Mattsson, Soren ;
Chakraborty, Dev P. ;
Tingberg, Anders .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (02) :400-407
[26]   Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: Randomized trial in a population-based screening program - The Oslo II study [J].
Skaane, P ;
Skjennald, A .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 232 (01) :197-204
[27]   Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: Follow-up and final results of Oslo II study [J].
Skaane, Per ;
Hofvind, Solveig ;
Skjennald, Arnulf .
RADIOLOGY, 2007, 244 (03) :708-717
[28]  
VARJONEN M, 2006, THESIS TAMPERE U TEC
[29]   Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images [J].
Wu, T ;
Stewart, A ;
Stanton, M ;
McCauley, T ;
Phillips, W ;
Kopans, DB ;
Moore, RH ;
Eberhard, JW ;
Opsahl-Ong, B ;
Niklason, L ;
Williams, MB .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (03) :365-380
[30]  
ZOETELIEF J, 1996, PUBLICATION EUR