Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography,magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June 10, 2017
Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography,magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficiency of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus DM in symptomatic women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol used in our study was accepted by the ethics committee at our hospital, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Between June and December 2014, 197 patients with 238 histologically proven lesions all underwent DM, DBT and MRI. Two radiologists were responsible for interpreting all images according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The diagnostic performance of each method was assessed by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared using McNemar’s test and Fisher’s exact test. A Kappa test was used to assess the interobserver agreement.
RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was lower in the group that underwent DM alone (Radiologist1 [R1], 0.849; Radiologist2 [R2], 0.850) than in the group that underwent DBT plus DM (R1, 0.907, P = 0.0204; R2, 0.900, P = 0.0239) and MRI plus DM (R1, 0.939, P = 0.0006; R2, 0.935, P = 0.0009). However, the difference between the group that received DBT plus DM and the group that received MRI plus DM was not significant (R1, P = 0.1262; R2, P = 0.0843). The accuracy (R1, 71.8%; R2, 71.4%) and sensitivity (R1, 71.9%; R2, 71.2%) of DM were lower than those of DBT ((accuracy: R1, 85.3%, P = 0.001; R2, 83.6%, P < 0.001; sensitivity: R1,92.1%, P < 0.001; R2, 90.8%, P < 0.001) and MRI combined with DM (accuracy: R1, 90.3%, P = 0.001; R2, 90.7%, P < 0.001; sensitivity: R1, 94.7%, P < 0.001; R2, 95.4%, P < 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was observed between DBT and MRI combined with DM (accuracy: R1, P = 0.644; R2, P = 0.360; sensitivity: R1, P = 0.502; R2, P = 0.359). The interobserver agreement of each method was excellent (k = 0.894 0.919 and 0.882 for DM, DBT and MRI combined with DM, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of DBT and MRI combined with DM is superior to that of DM alone in symptomatic women; MRI plus DM is slightly better than that of DBT plus DM, but this difference was not statistically significant.
MillerK.D., SiegelR.L., LinC.C., et al., Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016, CA Cancer J Clin66 (2016), 271–289.
2.
KolbT.M., LichyJ. and NewhouseJ.H., Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations, Radiology225 (2002), 165–175.
3.
PisanoE.D., HendrickR.E., YaffeM.J., et al., Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST, Radiology246 (2008), 376–383.
4.
HooleyR.J., GreenbergK.L., StackhouseR.M., GeiselJ.L., ButlerR.S. and PhilpottsL.E., Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: Initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41, Radiology265 (2012), 59–69.
5.
RoganovicD., DjilasD., VujnovicS., PavicD. and StojanovD., Breast MRI, digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis: Comparison of three methods for early detection of breast cancer, Bosn J Basic Med Sci15 (2015), 64–68.
6.
Heywang-KobrunnerS.H., HackerA. and SedlacekS., Magnetic resonance imaging: The evolution of breast imaging, Breast22(Suppl 2) (2013), S77–S82.
7.
OrelS.G. and SchnallM.D., MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer, Radiology220 (2001), 13–30.
8.
FischerU., KopkaL. and GrabbeE., Breast carcinoma: Effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach, Radiology213 (1999), 881–888.
9.
MartinezM.P. and EtxanoJ., Breast tomosynthesis: A new tool for diagnosing breast cancer, Radiologia57 (2015), 3–8.
10.
AlakhrasM., BourneR., RickardM., NgK.H., PietrzykM. and BrennanP.C., Digital tomosynthesis: A new future for breast imaging?Clin Radiol68 (2013), e225–e236.
11.
FriedewaldS.M., RaffertyE.A., RoseS.L., et al., Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography, JAMA311 (2014), 2499–2507.
12.
LeeC.I., CevikM., AlagozO., et al., Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts, Radiology274 (2015), 772–780.
13.
GilbertF.J., TuckerL. and YoungK.C., Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): A review of the evidence for use as a screening tool, Clin Radiol71 (2016), 141–150.
14.
KimW.H., ChangJ.M., MoonH.G., et al., Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers, Eur Radiol26 (2016), 1556–1564.
15.
MercadoC.L., BI-RADS update, Radiol Clin North Am52 (2014), 481–487.
16.
ShinK., PhalakK., HamameA. and WhitmanG.J., Interpretation of breast MRI utilizing the BI-RADS fifth edition lexicon: How are we doing and where are we headed?Curr Probl Diagn Radiol46 (2017), 26–34.
17.
ParkS.H., GooJ.M. and JoC.H., Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: Practical review for radiologists, Korean J Radiol5 (2004), 11–18.
18.
GreenbergJ.S., JavittM.C., KatzenJ., MichaelS. and HollandA.E., Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice, AJR Am J Roentgenol203 (2014), 687–693.
19.
ThibaultF., DromainC., BreucqC., et al., Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: A multireader performance study, Eur Radiol23 (2013), 2441–2449.
20.
SkaaneP., BandosA.I., EbenE.B., et al., Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: Comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images, Radiology271 (2014), 655–663.
21.
MichellM.J., IqbalA., WasanR.K., et al., A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis, Clin Radiol67 (2012), 976–981.
22.
BernardiD., MacaskillP., PellegriniM., et al., Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): A population-based prospective study, Lancet Oncol17 (2016), 1105–1113.
23.
SkaaneP., BandosA.I., GullienR., et al., Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program, Radiology267 (2013), 47–56.
24.
HaasB.M., KalraV., GeiselJ., RaghuM., DurandM. and PhilpottsL.E., Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening, Radiology269 (2013), 694–700.
25.
BernardiD., CiattoS., PellegriniM., et al., Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: Incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time, Br J Radiol85 (2012), e1174–e1178.
26.
WallisM.G., MoaE., ZancaF., LeiflandK. and DanielssonM., Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: High-resolution X-ray imaging observer study, Radiology262 (2012), 788–796.
27.
MariscottiG., HoussamiN., DurandoM., et al., Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer, Anticancer Res34 (2014), 1219–1225.
28.
BigliaN., BounousV.E., MartincichL., et al., Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast, Eur J Surg Oncol37 (2011), 199–204.
29.
JochelsonM.S., DershawD.D., SungJ.S., et al., Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: Feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma, Radiology266 (2013), 743–751.
30.
BergW.A., ZhangZ., LehrerD., et al., Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk, JAMA307 (2012), 1394–1404.
31.
ElmoreJ.G., ArmstrongK., LehmanC.D. and FletcherS.W., Screening for breast cancer, JAMA293 (2005), 1245–1256.
32.
ClauserP., CarbonaroL.A., PancotM., et al., Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: The value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis, Eur Radiol25 (2015), 2830–2839.
33.
MariscottiG., HoussamiN., DurandoM., et al., Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to characterize MRI-detected additional lesions unidentified at targeted ultrasound in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, Eur Radiol25 (2015), 2673–2681.
34.
ChenY.P., HanT., WuR., YaoM.H., XuG., ZhaoL.X., LiuH., PuH. and FangY., Comparison of Virtual Touch Tissue Quantification and Virtual Touch Tissue Imaging Quantification for diagnosis of solid breast tumors of different sizes, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc64(2) (2016), 235–244.
