Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Noroozian M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3244671 | biostudies-other | 2012 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:To compare the diagnostic performance of breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental mammography views in classification of masses, distortions, and asymmetries.Eight radiologists who specialized in breast imaging retrospectively reviewed 217 consecutively accrued lesions by using protocols that were HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved in 182 patients aged 31-60 years (mean, 50 years) who underwent diagnostic mammography and tomosynthesis. The lesions in the cohort included 33% (72 of 217) cancers and 67% (145 of 217) benign lesions. Eighty-four percent (182 of 217) of the lesions were masses, 11% (25 of 217) were asymmetries, and 5% (10 of 217) were distortions that were initially detected at clinical examination in 8% (17 of 217), at mammography in 80% (173 of 217), at ultrasonography (US) in 11% (25 of 217), or at magnetic resonance imaging in 1% (2 of 217). Histopathologic examination established truth in 191 lesions, US revealed a cyst in 12 lesions, and 14 lesions had a normal follow-up. Each lesion was interpreted once with tomosynthesis and once with supplemental mammographic views; both modes included the mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal views in a fully crossed and balanced design by using a five-category Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and a probability-of-malignancy score. Differences between modes were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model for BI-RADS-based sensitivity and specificity and with modified Obuchowski-Rockette approach for probability-of-malignancy-based area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Average probability-of-malignancy-based area under the ROC curve was 0.87 for tomosynthesis versus 0.83 for supplemental views (P < .001). With tomosynthesis, the false-positive rate decreased from 85% (989 of 1160) to 74% (864 of 1160) (P < .01) for cases that were rated BI-RADS category 3 or higher and from 57% (663 of 1160) to 48% (559 of 1160) for cases rated BI-RADS category 4 or 5 (P < .01), without a meaningful change in sensitivity. With tomosynthesis, more cancers were classified as BI-RADS category 5 (39% [226 of 576] vs 33% [188 of 576]; P = .017) without a decrease in specificity.Tomosynthesis significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for noncalcified lesions compared with supplemental mammographic views.
| S-EPMC3528971 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC6493215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale and objectivesA linear array of carbon nanotube-enabled x-ray sources allows for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis (sDBT), during which projection views are collected without the need to move the x-ray tube. This work presents our initial clinical experience with a first-generation sDBT device.Materials and methodsFollowing informed consent, women with a "suspicious abnormality" (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4), discovered by digital mammography and awaiting biopsy, were also imaged by the first generation sDBT. Four radiologists participated in this paired-image study, completing questionnaires while interpreting the mammograms and sDBT image stacks. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to measure reader performance (likelihood of correctly identifying malignancy based on pathology as ground truth), while a multivariate analysis assessed preference, as readers compared one modality to the next when interpreting diagnostically important image features.ResultsFindings from 43 women were available for analysis, in whom 12 cases of malignancy were identified by pathology. The mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly higher (p < 0.05) for sDBT than mammography for all breast density categories and breast thicknesses. Additionally, readers preferred sDBT over mammography when evaluating mass margins and shape, architectural distortion, and asymmetry, but preferred mammography when characterizing microcalcifications.ConclusionReaders preferred sDBT over mammography when interpreting soft-tissue breast features and were diagnostically more accurate using images generated by sDBT in a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 population. However, the findings also demonstrated the need to improve microcalcification conspicuity, which is guiding both technological and image-processing design changes in future sDBT devices.
| S-EPMC6635094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate the feasibility of a new two-dimensional (2D) multichannel response (MCR) analysis approach for the detection of clustered microcalcifications (MCs) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).With IRB approval and informed consent, a data set of two-view DBTs from 42 breasts containing biopsy-proven MC clusters was collected in this study. The authors developed a 2D approach for MC detection using projection view (PV) images rather than the reconstructed three-dimensional (3D) DBT volume. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) enhancement processing was first applied to each PV to enhance the potential MCs. The locations of MC candidates were then identified with iterative thresholding. The individual MCs were decomposed with Hermite-Gaussian (HG) and Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) basis functions and the channelized Hotelling model was trained to produce the MCRs for each MC on the 2D images. The MCRs from the PVs were fused in 3D by a coincidence counting method that backprojects the MC candidates on the PVs and traces the coincidence of their ray paths in 3D. The 3D MCR was used to differentiate the true MCs from false positives (FPs). Finally a dynamic clustering method was used to identify the potential MC clusters in the DBT volume based on the fact that true MCs of clinical significance appear in clusters. Using two-fold cross validation, the performance of the 3D MCR for classification of true and false MCs was estimated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the overall performance of the MCR approach for detection of clustered MCs was assessed by free response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) analysis.When the HG basis function was used for MCR analysis, the detection of MC cluster achieved case-based test sensitivities of 80% and 90% at the average FP rates of 0.65 and 1.55 FPs per DBT volume, respectively. With LG basis function, the average FP rates were 0.62 and 1.57 per DBT volume at the same sensitivity levels. The difference in the two sets of basis functions for detection of MCs did not show statistical significance.The authors' experimental results indicate that the MCR approach is promising for the detection of MCs on PV images. The HG or LG basis functions are both effective in characterizing the signal response of MCs using the channelized Hotelling model. The coincidence counting method for fusion of the 2D MCR in 3D is an important step for FP reduction. Further study is underway to improve the MCR approach for microcalcification detection in DBT.
| S-EPMC3971829 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background While digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening, the potential of DBT density measures for breast cancer risk assessment remains largely unexplored. Purpose To compare associations of breast density estimates from DBT and DM with breast cancer. Materials and Methods This retrospective case-control study used contralateral DM/DBT studies from women with unilateral breast cancer and age- and ethnicity-matched controls (September 19, 2011-January 6, 2015). Volumetric percent density (VPD%) was estimated from DBT using previously validated software. For comparison, the publicly available Laboratory for Individualized Breast Radiodensity Assessment software package, or LIBRA, was used to estimate area-based percent density (APD%) from raw and processed DM images. The commercial Quantra and Volpara software packages were applied to raw DM images to estimate VPD% with use of physics-based models. Density measures were compared by using Spearman correlation coefficients (r), and conditional logistic regression was performed to examine density associations (odds ratios [OR]) with breast cancer, adjusting for age and body mass index. Results A total of 132 women diagnosed with breast cancer (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 60 years ± 11) and 528 controls (mean age, 60 years ± 11) were included. Moderate correlations between DBT and DM density measures (r = 0.32-0.75; all P < .001) were observed. Volumetric density estimates calculated from DBT (OR, 2.3 [95% CI: 1.6, 3.4] per SD for VPD%DBT) were more strongly associated with breast cancer than DM-derived density for both APD% (OR, 1.3 [95% CI: 0.9, 1.9] [P < .001] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.3] [P = .004] per SD for LIBRA raw and processed data, respectively) and VPD% (OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.1, 2.4] [P = .01] and 1.7 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.6] [P = .04] per SD for Volpara and Quantra, respectively). Conclusion The associations between quantitative breast density estimates and breast cancer risk are stronger for digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Yaffe in this issue.
| S-EPMC8608738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The limitations of mammography are well known and are partly related to the fact that with conventional imaging, the three-dimensional volume of the breast is imaged and presented in a two-dimensional format. Because normal breast tissue is similar in x-ray attenuation to some breast cancers, clinically relevant malignancies may be obscured by normal overlapping tissue. In addition, complex areas of normal tissue may be perceived as suspicious. The limitations of two-dimensional breast imaging lead to low sensitivity in detecting some cancers and high false-positive recall rates. Although mammographic screening has been shown to reduce breast cancer deaths by approximately 30%, controversy exists over when and how often screening mammography should occur. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly being implemented in breast imaging clinics around the world as early clinical data demonstrate that it may address some of the limitations of conventional mammography. With DBT, multiple low-dose x-ray images are acquired in an arc and reconstructed to create a three-dimensional image, thus minimizing the impact of overlapping breast tissue and improving lesion conspicuity. Early studies of screening DBT have shown decreased false-positive callback rates and increased rates of cancer detection (particularly for invasive cancers), resulting in increased sensitivity and specificity. In our clinical practice, we have completed more than 2 years of using two-view digital mammography combined with two-view DBT for all screening and select diagnostic imaging examinations (over 25,000 patients). Our experience, combined with previously published data, demonstrates that the combined use of DBT and digital mammography is associated with improved outcomes for screening and diagnostic imaging. Online supplemental material is available for this article.
| S-EPMC4319526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251?384 DBT and 2?000?681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2?252?065 DM and DBT examinations (2?000?681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251?384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710?934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1?448?981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.
| S-EPMC7292996 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7706877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is an emerging breast cancer screening and diagnostic modality that uses quasi-three-dimensional breast images to provide detailed assessments of the dense tissue within the breast. In this study, a framework of a 3D-Mask region-based convolutional neural network (3D-Mask RCNN) computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system was developed for mass detection and segmentation with a comparative analysis of performance on patient subgroups with different clinicopathological characteristics. To this end, 364 samples of DBT data were used and separated into a training dataset (n = 201) and a testing dataset (n = 163). The detection and segmentation results were evaluated on the testing set and on subgroups of patients with different characteristics, including different age ranges, lesion sizes, histological types, lesion shapes and breast densities. The results of our 3D-Mask RCNN framework were compared with those of the 2D-Mask RCNN and Faster RCNN methods. For lesion-based mass detection, the sensitivity of 3D-Mask RCNN-based CAD was 90% with 0.8 false positives (FPs) per lesion, whereas the sensitivity of the 2D-Mask RCNN- and Faster RCNN-based CAD was 90% at 1.3 and 2.37 FPs/lesion, respectively. For breast-based mass detection, the 3D-Mask RCNN generated a sensitivity of 90% at 0.83 FPs/breast, and this framework is better than the 2D-Mask RCNN and Faster RCNN, which generated a sensitivity of 90% with 1.24 and 2.38 FPs/breast, respectively. Additionally, the 3D-Mask RCNN achieved significantly (p < 0.05) better performance than the 2D methods on subgroups of samples with characteristics of ages ranged from 40 to 49 years, malignant tumors, spiculate and irregular masses and dense breast, respectively. Lesion segmentation using the 3D-Mask RCNN achieved an average precision (AP) of 0.934 and a false negative rate (FNR) of 0.053, which are better than those achieved by the 2D methods. The results suggest that the 3D-Mask RCNN CAD framework has advantages over 2D-based mass detection on both the whole data and subgroups with different characteristics.
| S-EPMC7686533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a 3D x-ray imaging modality in which tomographic sections of the breast are generated from a limited range of tube angles. Because oblique x-ray incidence shifts the image of an object in subpixel detector element increments with each increasing projection angle, it is demonstrated that DBT is capable of super-resolution (i.e., subpixel resolution).By convention, DBT reconstructions are performed on planes parallel to the breast support at various depths of the breast volume. In order for resolution in each reconstructed slice to be comparable to the detector, the pixel size should match that of the detector elements; hence, the highest frequency that can be resolved in the plane of reconstruction is the alias frequency of the detector. This study considers reconstruction grids with much smaller pixelation to visualize higher frequencies. For analytical proof of super-resolution, a theoretical framework is developed in which the reconstruction of a high frequency sinusoidal input is calculated using both simple backprojection (SBP) and filtered backprojection. To study the frequency spectrum of the reconstruction, its Fourier transform is also determined. The experimental feasibility of super-resolution was investigated by acquiring images of a bar pattern phantom with frequencies higher than the detector alias frequency.Using analytical modeling, it is shown that the central projection cannot resolve frequencies exceeding the detector alias frequency. The Fourier transform of the central projection is maximized at a lower frequency than the input as evidence of aliasing. By contrast, SBP reconstruction can resolve the input, and its Fourier transform is correctly maximized at the input frequency. Incorporating filters into the reconstruction smoothens pixelation artifacts in the spatial domain and reduces spectral leakage in the Fourier domain. It is also demonstrated that the existence of super-resolution is dependent on position in the reconstruction and on the directionality of the input frequency. Consistent with the analytical results, experimental reconstructions of bar patterns showed visibility of frequencies greater than the detector alias frequency. Super-resolution was present at positions predicted from analytical modeling.This work demonstrates the existence of super-resolution in DBT. Super-resolution has the potential to impact the visualization of fine structural details in the breast, such as microcalcifications and other subtle signs of cancer.
| S-EPMC3523583 | biostudies-other