Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?
| Autor: | M. Kossoff, M. Roberts, C. Shearman, B. Macdonell-Scott, M. McKessar, J. Duncombe, N. Winarta, Jennie Noakes, K. Donohue, K. Suzuki, A. Miller, N. Bhola, F. Klijnsma, Bruno Giuffre, G. DaCosta, S. Choi, Suneeta Mall, J. Sterba, Patrick C. Brennan, Michael G. Kay, W. Lee, Claudia Mello-Thoms, K. Bruderlin, A. Goy, C. Kapoor |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2018 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Digital mammography Breast Neoplasms 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Breast cancer medicine Mammography Humans Mass Screening Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Neuroradiology medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry Incidence Australia Interventional radiology General Medicine medicine.disease Tomosynthesis Work-up Clinical trial Radiographic Image Enhancement ROC Curve 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Female Radiology business |
| Zdroj: | European radiology. 28(12) |
| ISSN: | 1432-1084 |
| Popis: | To compare the efficacy of use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with standard digital mammography (DM) workup views in the breast cancer assessment clinic. The Tomosynthesis Assessment Clinic trial (TACT), conducted between 16 October 2014 and 19 April 2016, is an ethics-approved, monocenter, multireader, multicase split-plot reading study. After written informed consent was obtained, 144 females (age > 40 years) who were recalled to the assessment clinic were recruited into TACT. These cases (48 cancers) were randomly allocated for blinded review of (1) DM workup and (2) DBT, both in conjunction with previous DM from the screening examination. Fifteen radiologists of varying experience levels in the Australia BreastScreen Program were included in this study, wherein each radiologist read 48 cases (16 cancers) in 3 non-overlapping blocks. Diagnostic accuracy was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to determine radiologists’ performances. Use of DBT (AUC = 0.927) led to improved performance of the radiologists (z = 2.62, p = 0.008) compared with mammography workup (AUC = 0.872). Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of DBT (0.93, 0.75, 0.64, 0.96) were higher than those of the workup (0.90, 0.56, 0.49, 0.92). Most radiologists (80%) performed better with DBT than standard workup. Cancerous lesions on DBT appeared more severe (U = 33,172, p = 0.02) and conspicuous (U = 24,207, p = 0.02). There was a significant reduction in the need for additional views (χ2 = 17.63, p < 0.001) and recommendations for ultrasound (χ2 = 8.56, p = 0.003) with DBT. DBT has the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy and simplify the assessment process in the breast cancer assessment clinic. • Use of DBT in the assessment clinic results in increased diagnostic accuracy. • Use of DBT in the assessment clinic improves performance of radiologists and also increases the confidence in their decisions. • DBT may reduce the need for additional views, ultrasound imaging, and biopsy. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink