• Per Skaane, Andriy I Bandos, Loren T Niklason, Sofie Sebuødegård, Bjørn H Østerås, Randi Gullien, David Gur, and Solveig Hofvind.
• From the Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Breast Imaging Center, PO Box 4950, Nydalen, 0424 Oslo, Norway (P.S., R.G.); Departments of Biostatistics (A.I.B.) and Radiology (D.G.), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa; Retired, former employee of Hologic (L.T.N.); Department of Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway (S.S., S.H.); Department of Diagnostic Physics, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway (B.H.Ø.); and Department of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway (S.H.).
• Radiology. 2019 Apr 1; 291 (1): 23-30.

AbstractBackground Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow. Currently, there are limited prospective studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD). Purpose To compare the accuracy of DM versus DM + DBT in population-based breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study, performed from November 2010 to December 2012, included 24 301 women (mean age, 59.1 years ± 5.7 [standard deviation]) with 281 cancers, of which 51 were interval cancers. Each examination was independently interpreted with four reading modes: DM, DM + CAD, DM + DBT, and SM + DBT. Sensitivity and specificity were compared for DM versus DM + DBT, DM versus DM + CAD, DM + DBT versus SM + DBT, and DM versus DM + DBT at double reading. Reader-adjusted performance characteristics of reading modes were evaluated on the basis of pre-arbitration (initial interpretation) scores. Statistical analysis was based on cluster bootstrap analysis using 10 000 random resamples. Results Sensitivity was 54.1% (152 of 281) for DM and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT. Reader-adjusted difference was 12.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.2%, 19.7%; P = .001). Specificity was 94.2% (false-positive fraction [FPF], 5.8%; 1388 of 24 020) for DM and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%; 1209/24 020) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference in FPF of -1.2% (95% CI: -1.7%, -0.7%; P < .001). Sensitivity was 69.0% (194 of 281) for SM + DBT and 70.5% (198 of 281) for DM + DBT, with a reader-adjusted difference of 1.0% (95% CI: -6.2%, 8.5%; P = .77). Specificity was 95.4% (FPF, 4.6%; 1111 of 24 020) for SM + DBT and 95.0% (FPF, 5.0%;1209 of 24 020) for DM + DBT, with reader-adjusted 95% CIs for FPF of 4.7%, 5.4% and 5.0%, 5.7%, respectively, and a difference of -0.3% (95% CI: -0.8%, 0.2%; P = .23). Differences in sensitivity and specificity with the addition of CAD were small and not significant (P > .2). Conclusion Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity and specificity. Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

23 keywords...

hide…