Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study.
Type
ArticleAuthor/s
Mariscotti, GDurando, M
Houssami, Nehmat
Zuiani, C
Martincich, L
Londero, V
Caramia, E
Clauser, P
Campanino, P.P.
Regini, E
Luparia, A
Castellano, I
Bergamasco, L
Sapino, A
Fonio, P
Bazzocchi, M
Gandini, G
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the interpretive performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as an adjunct to digital mammography (DM) compared to DM alone in a series of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) and to assess whether DBT can be used to characterise ILC.
A ...
See moreThe aim of this study was to examine the interpretive performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as an adjunct to digital mammography (DM) compared to DM alone in a series of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) and to assess whether DBT can be used to characterise ILC. A retrospective, multi-reader study was conducted of 83 mammographic examinations of women with 107 newly diagnosed ILCs ascertained at histology. Consenting women underwent both DM and DBT acquisitions. Twelve radiologists, with varying mammography experience, interpreted DM images alone, reporting lesion location, mammographic features, and malignancy probability using the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1–5; they then reviewed DBT images in addition to DM, and reported the same parameters. Statistical analyses compared sensitivity, false-positive rates (FPR), and interpretive performance using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC), for reading with DM versus DM plus DBT.
See less
See moreThe aim of this study was to examine the interpretive performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as an adjunct to digital mammography (DM) compared to DM alone in a series of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) and to assess whether DBT can be used to characterise ILC. A retrospective, multi-reader study was conducted of 83 mammographic examinations of women with 107 newly diagnosed ILCs ascertained at histology. Consenting women underwent both DM and DBT acquisitions. Twelve radiologists, with varying mammography experience, interpreted DM images alone, reporting lesion location, mammographic features, and malignancy probability using the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1–5; they then reviewed DBT images in addition to DM, and reported the same parameters. Statistical analyses compared sensitivity, false-positive rates (FPR), and interpretive performance using the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC), for reading with DM versus DM plus DBT.
See less
Date
2016Source title
Clinical RadiologyVolume
71Issue
9Publisher
ElsevierLicence
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0Faculty/School
Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public HealthShare