Cargando…
One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting?
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance in the assessment setting of three protocols: one-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) with synthetic mammography (SM), two-view WA-DBT/SM, and two-view digital mammography (DM). METHODS: Included in this retrospective study were pa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8660729/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34324025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08079-2 |
_version_ | 1784613249456537600 |
---|---|
author | Clauser, Paola Baltzer, Pascal A. T. Kapetas, Panagiotis Woitek, Ramona Weber, Michael Leone, Federica Bernathova, Maria Helbich, Thomas H. |
author_facet | Clauser, Paola Baltzer, Pascal A. T. Kapetas, Panagiotis Woitek, Ramona Weber, Michael Leone, Federica Bernathova, Maria Helbich, Thomas H. |
author_sort | Clauser, Paola |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance in the assessment setting of three protocols: one-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) with synthetic mammography (SM), two-view WA-DBT/SM, and two-view digital mammography (DM). METHODS: Included in this retrospective study were patients who underwent bilateral two-view DM and WA-DBT. SM were reconstructed from the WA-DBT data. The standard of reference was histology and/or 2 years follow-up. Included were 205 women with 179 lesions (89 malignant, 90 benign). Four blinded readers randomly evaluated images to assess density, lesion type, and level of suspicion according to BI-RADS. Three protocols were evaluated: two-view DM, one-view (mediolateral oblique) WA-DBT/SM, and two-view WA-DBT/SM. Detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and compared using multivariate analysis. Reading time was assessed. RESULTS: The detection rate was higher with two-view WA-DBT/SM (p = 0.063). Sensitivity was higher for two-view WA-DBT/SM compared to two-view DM (p = 0.001) and one-view WA-DBT/SM (p = 0.058). No significant differences in specificity were found. Accuracy was higher with both one-view WA-DBT/SM and two-view WA-DBT/SM compared to DM (p = 0.003 and > 0.001, respectively). Accuracy did not differ between one- and two-view WA-DBT/SM. Two-view WA-DBT/SM performed better for masses and asymmetries. Reading times were significantly longer when WA-DBT was evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: One-view and two-view WA-DBT/SM can achieve a higher diagnostic performance compared to two-view DM. The detection rate and sensitivity were highest with two-view WA-DBT/SM. Two-view WA-DBT/SM appears to be the most appropriate tool for the assessment of breast lesions. KEY POINTS: • Detection rate with two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) is significantly higher than with two-view digital mammography in the assessment setting. • Diagnostic accuracy of one-view and two-view WA-DBT with synthetic mammography (SM) in the assessment setting is higher than that of two-view digital mammography. • Compared to one-view WA-DBT with SM, two-view WA-DBT with SM seems to be the most appropriate tool for the assessment of breast lesions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8660729 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86607292021-12-27 One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? Clauser, Paola Baltzer, Pascal A. T. Kapetas, Panagiotis Woitek, Ramona Weber, Michael Leone, Federica Bernathova, Maria Helbich, Thomas H. Eur Radiol Breast OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance in the assessment setting of three protocols: one-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) with synthetic mammography (SM), two-view WA-DBT/SM, and two-view digital mammography (DM). METHODS: Included in this retrospective study were patients who underwent bilateral two-view DM and WA-DBT. SM were reconstructed from the WA-DBT data. The standard of reference was histology and/or 2 years follow-up. Included were 205 women with 179 lesions (89 malignant, 90 benign). Four blinded readers randomly evaluated images to assess density, lesion type, and level of suspicion according to BI-RADS. Three protocols were evaluated: two-view DM, one-view (mediolateral oblique) WA-DBT/SM, and two-view WA-DBT/SM. Detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and compared using multivariate analysis. Reading time was assessed. RESULTS: The detection rate was higher with two-view WA-DBT/SM (p = 0.063). Sensitivity was higher for two-view WA-DBT/SM compared to two-view DM (p = 0.001) and one-view WA-DBT/SM (p = 0.058). No significant differences in specificity were found. Accuracy was higher with both one-view WA-DBT/SM and two-view WA-DBT/SM compared to DM (p = 0.003 and > 0.001, respectively). Accuracy did not differ between one- and two-view WA-DBT/SM. Two-view WA-DBT/SM performed better for masses and asymmetries. Reading times were significantly longer when WA-DBT was evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: One-view and two-view WA-DBT/SM can achieve a higher diagnostic performance compared to two-view DM. The detection rate and sensitivity were highest with two-view WA-DBT/SM. Two-view WA-DBT/SM appears to be the most appropriate tool for the assessment of breast lesions. KEY POINTS: • Detection rate with two-view wide-angle digital breast tomosynthesis (WA-DBT) is significantly higher than with two-view digital mammography in the assessment setting. • Diagnostic accuracy of one-view and two-view WA-DBT with synthetic mammography (SM) in the assessment setting is higher than that of two-view digital mammography. • Compared to one-view WA-DBT with SM, two-view WA-DBT with SM seems to be the most appropriate tool for the assessment of breast lesions. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-07-29 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8660729/ /pubmed/34324025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08079-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Breast Clauser, Paola Baltzer, Pascal A. T. Kapetas, Panagiotis Woitek, Ramona Weber, Michael Leone, Federica Bernathova, Maria Helbich, Thomas H. One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
title | One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
title_full | One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
title_fullStr | One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
title_full_unstemmed | One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
title_short | One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
title_sort | one view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? |
topic | Breast |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8660729/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34324025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08079-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT clauserpaola oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT baltzerpascalat oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT kapetaspanagiotis oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT woitekramona oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT webermichael oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT leonefederica oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT bernathovamaria oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting AT helbichthomash oneviewortwoviewsforwideangletomosynthesiswithsyntheticmammographyintheassessmentsetting |