Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

Efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis
Author(s): M. Alakhras; C. Mello-Thoms; M. Rickard; R. Bourne; P. C. Brennan
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in combination with digital mammography (DM) with that of digital mammography alone.

Materials and Methods: Twenty six experienced radiologists who specialized in breast imaging read 50 cases (27 cancers and 23 non-cancer cases) of patients who underwent DM and DBT. Both exams included the craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. Histopathologic examination established truth in all lesions. Each case was interpreted in two modes, once with DM alone followed by DM+DBT, and the observers were asked to mark the location of any lesions, if present, and give it a score based on a five-category assessment by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). The diagnostic performance of DM compared with that of DM+DBT was evaluated in terms of the difference between areas under receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs), Jackknife free-response receiver operator characteristics (JAFROC) figure-of-merit, sensitivity, location sensitivity and specificity.

Results: Average AUC and JAFROC for DM versus DM+DBT was significantly different (AUCs 0.690 vs 0.781, p=< 0.0001), (JAFROC 0.618 vs. 0.732, p=< 0.0001) respectively. In addition, the use of DM+DBT resulted in an improvement in sensitivity (0.629 vs. 0.701, p=0.0011), location sensitivity (0.548 vs. 0.690, p=< 0.0001) and specificity (0.656 vs. 0.758, p=0.0015) when compared to DM alone.

Conclusion: Adding DBT to the standard DM significantly improved radiologists’ performance in terms of AUCs, JAFROC figure of merit, sensitivity, location sensitivity and specificity values.

Paper Details

Date Published: 11 March 2014
PDF: 9 pages
Proc. SPIE 9037, Medical Imaging 2014: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 90370V (11 March 2014); doi: 10.1117/12.2043321
Show Author Affiliations
M. Alakhras, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)
C. Mello-Thoms, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)
The Univ. of Pittsburgh School of Medicine (United States)
M. Rickard, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)
Sydney Breast Clinic (Australia)
R. Bourne, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)
P. C. Brennan, The Univ. of Sydney (Australia)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 9037:
Medical Imaging 2014: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Claudia R. Mello-Thoms; Matthew A. Kupinski, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top