Comparison of diagnostic performances in the evaluation of breast microcalcifications: synthetic mammography versus full-field digital mammography.
Breast microcalcifications
Full-field digital mammography
Synthetic mammography
Journal
Irish journal of medical science
ISSN: 1863-4362
Titre abrégé: Ir J Med Sci
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 7806864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
22
07
2021
accepted:
15
08
2021
pubmed:
3
9
2021
medline:
27
7
2022
entrez:
2
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although several studies proved that SM could substitute for FFDM, the efficacy of SM in microcalcification evaluation remains controversial. To investigate the diagnostic performance of synthetic mammography (SM) in the evaluation of microcalcifications in comparison with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). In this retrospective study, 76 mammograms of 76 patients who underwent FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions concomitantly between 2018 and 2019 and whose final mammography interpretation revealed microcalcifications (28 malignant microcalcifications and 48 benign microcalcifications) were included. All mammograms were reviewed independently by three radiologists with different levels of breast imaging experience. Readers were blinded to patient outcomes and interpreted each case in two separate reading sessions (first FFDM, second SM + DBT), according to the BI-RADS lexicon. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was calculated using ROC analysis in all cases for FFDM and SM + DBT sessions. The readers also assigned conspicuity scores to mammograms. The interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The overall AUCs for malignant microcalcifications were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.85) in FFDM and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.89) in SM, and no significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.0603). The sensitivity of the readers increased slightly with experience. The ICC values of BI-RADS categorization between readers were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) for FFDM and SM, respectively. SM had similar diagnostic performance in the evaluation of breast microcalcifications in comparison with FFDM, regardless of reader experience levels.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although several studies proved that SM could substitute for FFDM, the efficacy of SM in microcalcification evaluation remains controversial.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the diagnostic performance of synthetic mammography (SM) in the evaluation of microcalcifications in comparison with full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective study, 76 mammograms of 76 patients who underwent FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) acquisitions concomitantly between 2018 and 2019 and whose final mammography interpretation revealed microcalcifications (28 malignant microcalcifications and 48 benign microcalcifications) were included. All mammograms were reviewed independently by three radiologists with different levels of breast imaging experience. Readers were blinded to patient outcomes and interpreted each case in two separate reading sessions (first FFDM, second SM + DBT), according to the BI-RADS lexicon. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was calculated using ROC analysis in all cases for FFDM and SM + DBT sessions. The readers also assigned conspicuity scores to mammograms. The interobserver agreement was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall AUCs for malignant microcalcifications were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.85) in FFDM and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.89) in SM, and no significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.0603). The sensitivity of the readers increased slightly with experience. The ICC values of BI-RADS categorization between readers were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) for FFDM and SM, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SM had similar diagnostic performance in the evaluation of breast microcalcifications in comparison with FFDM, regardless of reader experience levels.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34472041
doi: 10.1007/s11845-021-02744-7
pii: 10.1007/s11845-021-02744-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1891-1897Informations de copyright
© 2021. Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland.
Références
Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP et al (2017) Imaging with synthesized 2d mammography: differences, advantages, and pitfalls compared with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(1):222–229
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17476
Durand MA (2018) Synthesized mammography: clinical evidence, appearance, and implementation. Diagnostics (Basel) 8(2)
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ et al (2014) Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 271(3):664–671
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131530
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB et al (2014) Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 271(3):655–663
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131391
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM et al (2016) Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology 281(3):730–736
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016160366
Alabousi M, Wadera A, Kashif Al-Ghita M, et al (2021) Performance of digital breast tomosynthesis, synthetic mammography, and digital mammography in breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst 113(6):680–90
Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N et al (2017) Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and bi-rads assessment categories. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166(3):765–773
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4458-3
Hwang E, Szabo J, Sonnenblick EB et al (2018) Variable appearances of ductal carcinoma in situ calcifications on digital mammography, synthesized mammography, and tomosynthesis: a pictorial essay. Can Assoc Radiol J 69(1):2–9
doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2017.04.005
Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E (2016) How does c-view image quality compare with conventional 2d ffdm? Med Phys 43(5):2538
doi: 10.1118/1.4947293
Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS (2017) Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening. Radiographics 37(7):1913–1927
doi: 10.1148/rg.2017170032
Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH et al (2011) Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2d digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):320–324
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4656
Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M et al (2015) Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2d digital mammography (ffdm) and digital breast tomosynthesis (dbt): does dbt underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol 25(1):9–14
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3402-8
Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(3):616–623
doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2231
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a uk retrospective reading study (tommy trial). Radiology 277(3):697–706
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015142566
Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI et al (2012) Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (dbt) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 19(2):166–171
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003
Lai YC, Ray KM, Lee AY et al (2018) Microcalcifications detected at screening mammography: synthetic mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography. Radiology 289(3):630–638
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181180
Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY et al (2019) Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications. Eur Radiol 29(1):319–329
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5585-x
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148(3):839–843
doi: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708
Dodelzon K, Simon K, Dou E, et al (2020) Performance of 2d synthetic mammography versus digital mammography in the detection of microcalcifications at screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1–9
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 291(1):23–30
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182394
Abdullah P, Alabousi M, Ramadan S et al (2021) Synthetic 2D mammography versus standard 2D digital mammography: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 217(2):314–325
doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24204
Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R et al (2017) Clinical performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology 283(1):70–76
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162674
Freer PE, Riegert J, Eisenmenger L et al (2017) Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166(2):501–509
doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4431-1
Zuckerman SP, Sprague BL, Weaver DL et al (2020) Survey results regarding uptake and impact of synthetic digital mammography with tomosynthesis in the screening setting. J Am Coll Radiol 17(1):31–37
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.07.020