Advertisement

Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial

Published:March 03, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.004

      Abstract

      Objective

      We investigated the effect of integrating three-dimensional (3D)-mammography with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ detection measures in the ‘screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography’ (STORM) trial.

      Methods

      STORM, a prospective population-based trial (Trento and Verona breast screening services) compared sequential screen-reading: 2D-mammography alone and integrated 2D/3D-mammography. Radiologist-specific detection measures were calculated for each screen-reading phase for eight radiologists: number of detected cancers, proportion of true-positive (TP) detection, and number and rate of false-positive (FP) recalls (FPR). We estimated the incremental cancer detection rate (CDR).

      Results

      There were 59 cancers and 395 false recalls amongst 7292 screening participants. At 2D-mammography screening, radiologist-specific TP detection ranged between 38% and 83% (median 63%; mean 60% and sd 15.4%); at integrated 2D/3D-mammography, TP detection ranged between 78% and 93% (median 87%; mean 87% and sd 5.2%). For all but one radiologist, 2D/3D-mammography improved breast cancer detection (relative to 2D-mammography) ranging between 0% and 54% (median 29%; mean 27% and sd 16.2%) increase in the proportion of detected cancers. Incremental CDR attributable to integrating 3D-mammography in screening varied between 0/1000 and 5.3/1000 screens (median 1.8/1000; mean 2.3/1000 and sd 1.6/1000). Radiologist-specific FPR for 2D-mammography ranged between 1.5% and 4.2% (median 3.1%; mean 2.9% and sd 0.87%), and FPR based on the integrated 2D/3D-mammography read ranged between 1.0% and 3.3% (median 2.4%; mean 2.2% and sd 0.72%). Integrated 2D/3D-mammography screening, relative to 2D-mammography, had the effect of reducing FP and increasing TP detection for most radiologists.

      Conclusion

      There was broad variability in radiologist-specific TP detection at 2D-mammography and hence in the additional TP detection and incremental CDR attributable to integrated 2D/3D-mammography; more consistent (less variable) TP-detection estimates were observed for the integrated screen-read. Integrating 3D-mammography with 2D-mammography improves radiologists’ screen-reading through improved cancer detection and/or reduced FPR, with most readers achieving both using integrated 2D/3D mammography.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening
        The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 1778-1786
        • Glasziou P.
        • Houssami N.
        The evidence base for breast cancer screening.
        Prev Med. 2011; 53: 100-102
        • Baker J.A.
        • Lo J.Y.
        Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature.
        Acad Radiol. 2011; 18: 1298-1310
        • Houssami N.
        • Zackrisson S.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis: the future of mammography screening or much ado about nothing?.
        Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013; 10: 583-585
        • Helvie M.A.
        Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications.
        Radiol Clin North Am. 2010; 48: 917-929
        • Houssami N.
        • Skaane P.
        Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection.
        Breast. 2013; 22: 101-108
        • Skaane P.
        • Gullien R.
        • Bjorndal H.
        • et al.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.
        Acta Radiol. 2012; 53: 524-529
        • Wallis M.G.
        • Moa E.
        • Zanca F.
        • Leifland K.
        • Danielsson M.
        Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.
        Radiology. 2012; 262: 788-796
        • Michell M.J.
        • Iqbal A.
        • Wasan R.K.
        • et al.
        A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
        Clin Radiol. 2012; 67: 976-981
        • Bernardi D.
        • Ciatto S.
        • Pellegrini M.
        • et al.
        Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 133: 267-271
        • Skaane P.
        • Bandos A.I.
        • Gullien R.
        • et al.
        Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.
        Radiology. 2013; 267: 47-56
        • Ciatto S.
        • Houssami N.
        • Bernardi D.
        • et al.
        Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2013; : 583-589
        • SAS Institute Inc.
        SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide.
        2nd ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC2009
        • Tagliafico A.
        • Astengo D.
        • Cavagnetto F.
        • et al.
        One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis.
        Eur Radiol. 2012; 22: 539-544
        • Gennaro G.
        • Toledano A.
        • di Maggio C.
        • et al.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.
        Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 1545-1553
        • Rose S.L.
        • Tidwell A.L.
        • Bujnoch L.J.
        • Kushwaha A.C.
        • Nordmann A.S.
        • Sexton Jr., R.
        Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200: 1401-1408
        • Houssami N.
        STORM, a new dimension for mammography screening.
        Med J Aust. 2013; 199: 308-309