Dataset Information

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

ABSTRACT: Aim: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to assess whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions and improve the quality using CMOS technology or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional FFDM system. Material and Methods: An invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) was diagnosed in 200 patients in the period from 5/2011 to 1/2012. After histological verification, a breast-conserving therapy was performed with intraoperative imaging. Three different imaging systems were used: 1) Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1?mm, resolution 85?µm pixel pitch, 8?l/mm as the standard; 2) BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, USA), flat panel photodiode array, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50?µm pixel pitch, 12?l/mm; 3) Tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1?mm, resolution 85?µm pixel pitch, 8?l/mm, range: 50°, 25 projections, scan time >?20?s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiograms were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists. Results: Out of a total of 200 patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) 156 patients required no further operative therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving therapy. A retrospective analysis (n?=?44) showed an increase in sensitivity with tomosynthesis compared to the BioVision™ (CMOS technology) and the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0?:?1.0 of 8?% (p?Conclusions: The sensitivity of tomosynthesis for intraoperative radiography is significantly (p?

SUBMITTER: Schulz-Wendtland R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4651156 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

Schulz-Wendtland R R Dilbat G G Bani M M Fasching P A PA Lux M P MP Wenkel E E Schwab S S Loehberg C R CR Jud S M SM Rauh C C Bayer C M CM Beckmann M W MW Uder M M Meier-Meitinger M M

Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 20120601 6

<b>Aim:</b> The aim of this prospective clinical study was to assess whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions and improve the quality using CMOS technology or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional FFDM system. <b>Material and Methods:</b> An invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) was diagnosed in 200 patients in the period from 5/2011 to 1/2012. After histological verification, a breast-conserving therapy was performed with intraoperative imaging. Three ...[more]

PMID: 26640287

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aim: This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using CMOS technology, a specimen radiography system (SRS) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional full field digital mammography (FFDM) system. Material and Method: Between 12/2012 and 2/2013 50 patients were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 5). After histological verification, all patients underwent breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using 4 different systems and differing magnifications: 1. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm; 2. BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, AZ, USA), CMOS technology, photodiode array, flat panel, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50 µm pixel pitch, 12 lp/mm; 3. the Trident™ specimen radiography system (SRS) (Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 70 µm pixel pitch, 7.1 lp/mm; 4. tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm, angular range 50 degrees, 25 projections, scan time > 20 s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiographs were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists. Results: Of the 50 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 6), 39 patients required no further surgical therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving surgery. A retrospective analysis (n = 11) showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase of sensitivity with the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 2.0 or 1.0 : 1.0 (tomosynthesis) (2.6, 3.3 or 3.6 %), i.e. re-excision would not have been necessary in 2, 3 or 4 patients, respectively, compared to findings obtained with a standard magnification of 1.0 : 1.0. Conclusion: The sensitivity of the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis was significantly (p < 0.05) higher and the rate of re-excisions was reduced compared to FFDM using a conventional detector at a magnification of 2.0 but without zooming.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Development of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) provides a technology that generates three-dimensional data sets, thus reducing the pitfalls of overlapping breast tissue. Observational studies suggest that the combination of two-dimensional (2D) digital mammography and DBT increases diagnostic accuracy. However, because of duplicate exposure, this comes at the cost of an augmented radiation dose. This undesired adverse impact can be avoided by using synthesised 2D images reconstructed from the DBT data (s2D).We designed a diagnostic superiority trial on a high level of evidence with the aim of providing a comparison of screening efficacy parameters resulting from DBT+s2D versus the current screening standard 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a multicentre and multivendor setting on the basis of the quality-controlled, population-based, biennial mammography screening programme in Germany. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:80?000 women in the eligible age 50-69 years attending the routine mammography screening programme and willing to participate in the TOSYMA trial will be assigned by 1:1 randomisation to either the intervention arm (DBT+s2D) or the control arm (FFDM) during a 12-month recruitment period in screening units of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. State cancer registries will provide the follow-up of interval cancers.Primary endpoints are the detection rate of invasive breast cancers at screening examination and the cumulative incidence of interval cancers in the 2?years after a negative examination. Secondary endpoints are the detection rate of ductal carcinoma in situ and of tumour size T1, the recall rate for assessment, the positive predictive value of recall and the cumulative 12-month incidence of interval cancers. An adaptive statistical design with one interim analysis provides the option to modify the design. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol has been approved by the local medical ethical committee (2016-132-f-S). Results will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03377036; Pre-results.

Project description:Importance:Expensive and lengthy clinical trials can delay regulatory evaluation of innovative technologies, affecting patient access to high-quality medical products. Simulation is increasingly being used in product development but rarely in regulatory applications. Objectives:To conduct a computer-simulated imaging trial evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a replacement for digital mammography (DM) and to compare the results with a comparative clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants:The simulated Virtual Imaging Clinical Trial for Regulatory Evaluation (VICTRE) trial was designed to replicate a clinical trial that used human patients and radiologists. Images obtained with in silico versions of DM and DBT systems via fast Monte Carlo x-ray transport were interpreted by a computational reader detecting the presence of lesions. A total of 2986 synthetic image-based virtual patients with breast sizes and radiographic densities representative of a screening population and compressed thicknesses from 3.5 to 6 cm were generated using an analytic approach in which anatomical structures are randomly created within a predefined breast volume and compressed in the craniocaudal orientation. A positive cohort contained a digitally inserted microcalcification cluster or spiculated mass. Main Outcomes and Measures:The trial end point was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between modalities for lesion detection. The trial was sized for an SE of 0.01 in the change in area under the curve (AUC), half the uncertainty in the comparative clinical trial. Results:In this trial, computational readers analyzed 31?055 DM and 27?960 DBT cases from 2986 virtual patients with the following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System densities: 286 (9.6%) extremely dense, 1200 (40.2%) heterogeneously dense, 1200 (40.2%) scattered fibroglandular densities, and 300 (10.0%) almost entirely fat. The mean (SE) change in AUC was 0.0587 (0.0062) (P?<?.001) in favor of DBT. The change in AUC was larger for masses (mean [SE], 0.0903 [0.008]) than for calcifications (mean [SE], 0.0268 [0.004]), which was consistent with the findings of the comparative trial (mean [SE], 0.065 [0.017] for masses and -0.047 [0.032] for calcifications). Conclusions and Relevance:The results of the simulated VICTRE trial are consistent with the performance seen in the comparative trial. While further research is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings, in silico imaging trials represent a viable source of regulatory evidence for imaging devices.

Project description:Background Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density categories assigned by interpreting radiologists often influence decisions surrounding supplemental breast cancer screening and risk assessment. The landscape of mammographic screening continuously evolves, and different mammographic screening modalities may result in different perception of density, reflected in different assignment of BI-RADS density categories. Purpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessments. Materials and Methods Data were retrospectively analyzed from 24 736 individual women (42.3% [10 455 of 24 736] white women, 57.7% [14 281 of 24 736] black women; mean age, 56.3 years; age range, 40.0-74.9 years) who underwent from one to seven mammographic screening examinations from September 2010 through February 2017 (60 766 examinations). Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations). Random-effects logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of assignment to high versus low BI-RADS density category according to each modality, adjusted for ethnicity, age, body mass index (BMI), and radiologist. The interactions of modality with ethnicity and BMI on density categorization were also tested with the model. Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.50], P < .001). Lower likelihood of high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 0.69; P < .001). There were interactions of modality with ethnicity (P = .007) and BMI (P = .003) on breast density assessment, with greater differences in density categorization according to modality observed for black women than for white women and groups with higher BMI. Conclusion Breast density categorization may vary by screening mammographic modality, and this effect appears to vary by ethnicity and body mass index. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Philpotts in this issue.

Project description:Optimization of exposure parameters (target, filter, and kVp) in digital mammography necessitates maximization of the image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), while simultaneously minimizing patient dose. The goal of this study is to compare, for each of the major commercially available full field digital mammography (FFDM) systems, the impact of the selection of technique factors on image SNR and radiation dose for a range of breast thickness and tissue types. This phantom study is an update of a previous investigation and includes measurements on recent versions of two of the FFDM systems discussed in that article, as well as on three FFDM systems not available at that time. The five commercial FFDM systems tested, the Senographe 2000D from GE Healthcare, the Mammomat Novation DR from Siemens, the Selenia from Hologic, the Fischer Senoscan, and Fuji's 5000MA used with a Lorad M-IV mammography unit, are located at five different university test sites. Performance was assessed using all available x-ray target and filter combinations and nine different phantom types (three compressed thicknesses and three tissue composition types). Each phantom type was also imaged using the automatic exposure control (AEC) of each system to identify the exposure parameters used under automated image acquisition. The figure of merit (FOM) used to compare technique factors is the ratio of the square of the image SNR to the mean glandular dose. The results show that, for a given target/filter combination, in general FOM is a slowly changing function of kVp, with stronger dependence on the choice of target/filter combination. In all cases the FOM was a decreasing function of kVp at the top of the available range of kVp settings, indicating that higher tube voltages would produce no further performance improvement. For a given phantom type, the exposure parameter set resulting in the highest FOM value was system specific, depending on both the set of available target/filter combinations, and on the receptor type. In most cases, the AECs of the FFDM systems successfully identified exposure parameters resulting in FOM values near the maximum ones, however, there were several examples where AEC performance could be improved.

Project description:BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; P < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate (P = .52 and P = .98, respectively), positive predictive value (P = .78), or sensitivity (P = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Dataset Information

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

Publications

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets