Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to be more sensitive than digital mammography, but it requires longer reading time. We retrospectively compared accuracy and reading times of a simplified protocol with 1-cm-thick slabs versus a standard protocol of slabs + 1-mm-spaced planes, both integrated with synthetic 2D.

Methods

We randomly selected 894 DBTs (including 12 cancers) from the experimental arm of the RETomo trial. DBTs were read by two radiologists to estimate specificity. A second set of 24 cancers (8 also present in the first set) mixed within 276 negative DBTs was read by two radiologists. In total, 28 cancers with 64 readings were used to estimate sensitivity. Radiologists read with both protocols separated by a 3-month washout. Only women that were positive at the screening reading were assessed. Variance was estimated taking into account repeated measures.

Results

Sensitivity was 82.8% (53/64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 67.2–92.2) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.2–95.8) with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. In the random screening setting, specificity was 97.9% (1727/1764, 95% CI 97.1–98.5) and 96.3% (95% CI 95.3–97.1), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was 0.68 and 0.54 with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. Median reading times with simplified protocol were 20% to 30% shorter than with standard protocol.

Conclusions

A simplified protocol reduced reading time and false positives but may have a negative impact on sensitivity.

Key Points

• The adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, more sensitive than mammography, could be limited by its potential effect on the radiologists’ workload, i.e., increased reading time and fatigue.

• A DBT simplified protocol with slab only, compared to a standard protocol (slab plus planes) both integrated with synthetic 2D, reduced time and false positives but had a negative impact on sensitivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASMN:

Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova

AUSL:

Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale

BIRADS:

Breast imaging-reporting and data system

CAD:

Computer-aided detection

CAM:

Initials of reader 1

CC:

Craniocaudal

CI:

Confidence interval

DBT:

Digital breast tomosynthesis

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

DM:

Digital mammography

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

IQR:

Interquartile ranges

IRCCS:

Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (Research Hospital)

MLO:

Mediolateral oblique

PACS:

Picture archiving and communication system

RV:

Initials of reader 2

SR:

Initials of reader 3

Sy-2D:

Synthetic 2D

References

  1. European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer. Recommendations on breast cancer screening. Available via http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations/list/3 Access 24 May 2017

  2. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164:279–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19(4):614–622

  5. Council of the European Union (2003) Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/878/EC). OJ L 327, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 34–38

  6. Dibden A, Offman J, Parmar D et al (2014) Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme. Br J Cancer 110:560–564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(13):1081–1087

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Radiology 277:663–684

  9. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol 23:2061–2071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S (2016) Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 26:184–190

  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M et al (2016) 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 Oncol 17(8):1105–1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. US Food and Drug Administration. Premarket approval. SENOCLAIRE. Available via http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm?id=P130020S001 Access 24 May 2017

  16. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF (2016) Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol 2:737–743

  17. Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S et al (2017) Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 170745. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170745

  18. Houssami N (2018) Evidence on synthesized two-dimensional mammography versus digital mammography when using tomosynthesis (three-dimensional mammography) for population breast cancer screening. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):255–260.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.09.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Morra L, Sacchetto D, Durando M et al (2015) Breast cancer: computer-aided detection with digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 277(1):56–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P et al (2018) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis randomized Trial. Radiology 288(2):375–385

  21. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M et al (2012) Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 85:e1174–e1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA (2014) Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology 270:49–56

  23. Campari C, Giorgi Rossi P, Mori CA et al (2016) Impact of the introduction of digital mammography in an organized screening program on the recall and detection rate. J Digit Imaging 29(2):235–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tang ML, Tang NS, Chan IS, Chan BP (2002) Sample size determination for establishing equivalence/noninferiority via ratio of two proportions in matched-pair design. Biometrics 58(4):957–963

  25. Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, Castle PE et al (2009) Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older. Int J Cancer 124(3):516–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Eliasziw M, Donner A (1991) Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Stat Med 10:1981–1991

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wolter KM (2007) Introduction to variance estimation, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. StataCorp (2013) Stata: Release 13. Statistical Software. StataCorp LP, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  30. Galati F, Marzocca F, Bassetti E et al (2017) Added value of digital breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader agreement: changes in BI-RADS rate and follow-up management. Breast Care (Basel) 12(4):218–222. https://doi.org/10.1159/000477537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Choi WJ, Kim HH, Lee SY et al (2016) A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23(6):886–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carbonaro LA, Di Leo G, Clauser P et al (2016) Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol 85(4):808–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Schie G, Wallis MG, Leifland K, Danielsson M, Karssemeijer N (2013) Mass detection in reconstructed digital breast tomosynthesis volumes with a computer-aided detection system trained on 2D mammograms. Med Phys 40(4):041902

  34. Samala RK, Chan HP, Hadjiiski L, Helvie MA, Wei J, Cha K (2016) Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography. Med Phys 43(12):6654

  35. Balleyguier C, Arfi-Rouche J, Levy L et al (2017) Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: a pilot multi-reader, multi-case study using concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD). Eur J Radiol 97:83–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY (2017) Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretation performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 24:1–10

  37. Dustler M, Andersson M, Fornvik D, Timberg P, Timberg A (2013) A study of the feasibility of using slabbing to reduce tomosynthesis review time. Proc. SPIE 8673 Medical Imaging 86731L

  38. Friedewald SM (2017) Breast tomosynthesis: practical considerations. Radiol Clin North Am 55(3):493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2016.12.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to all the personnel for their committed work during data collection and to all women who participated in the study for their fundamental contribution. We want to sincerely thank Carlo Alberto Mori, MD, for his precious support, devoted work for this study, and inestimable experience in breast diagnosis. The following are also members of the RETomo working group. Screening readers and post-recall assessment: Coriani C, MD; Pescarolo M, MD; Stefanelli G, MD; Tondelli G, MD; Beretti F, MD; Caffarri S, MD. Screening Coordinating Center: Paterlini L, MD. Radiographers Coordinator: Canovi L, Colli M, Boschini M. Scientific direction: Cavuto S; Braglia L. We thank Jacqueline Costa for editing the text. The results of this study were presented orally at a scientific session at the RSNA Annual Meeting in Chicago 2017 and at the ECR in Vienna 2018.

Funding

The study has been partially funded by the Regione Emilia-Romagna (Public Health System) and sustained by the institutional funds of the Reggio Emilia Local Health Authority (AUSL)-IRCCS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Unit, AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Valentina Iotti, Sara Ravaioli, Rita Vacondio, Vanessa Marchesi, Giulia Besutti, Carlo Alberto Mori & Pierpaolo Pattacini

  2. Epidemiology Unit, AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Paolo Giorgi Rossi

  3. Medical Physics Unit, AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Andrea Nitrosi & Marco Bertolini

  4. Screening Coordinating Unit, AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Cinzia Campari

  5. Pathology Unit, AUSL Reggio Emilia, IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Moira Ragazzi

  6. Clinical and Experimental Medicine PhD Program, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

    Giulia Besutti

Authors
  1. Valentina Iotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Giorgi Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Nitrosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sara Ravaioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rita Vacondio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cinzia Campari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vanessa Marchesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Moira Ragazzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marco Bertolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Giulia Besutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Carlo Alberto Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Pierpaolo Pattacini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

the RETomo Working Group

  • C. Coriani
  • , M. Pescarolo
  • , G. Stefanelli
  • , G. Tondelli
  • , F. Beretti
  • , S. Caffarri
  • , L. Paterlini
  • , L. Canovi
  • , M. Colli
  • , M. Boschini
  • , S. Cavuto
  •  & L. Braglia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Iotti.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Paolo Giorgi Rossi, PhD.

Conflict of interest

VI, AN, RV, and PP have received speakers’ fees and travel grants from GE Healthcare. CAM received financial support from GE Healthcare to allow the conclusion of the study after his retiring.

PGR, SR, CC, VM, MR, and MB disclosed no relevant relationships.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (Paolo Giorgi Rossi, PhD) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iotti, V., Giorgi Rossi, P., Nitrosi, A. et al. Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs. Eur Radiol 29, 3802–3811 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5978-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5978-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation