Abstract
Objectives
To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography in women with known breast cancers.
Methods
Three radiologists independently reviewed image sets of 172 patients with 184 cancers; mammography alone, DBT plus mammography and MRI plus mammography, and scored for cancer probability using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Jack-knife alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristic (JAFROC), which allows diagnostic performance estimation using single lesion as a statistical unit in a cancer-only population, was used. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared using the McNemar and Fisher-exact tests.
Results
The JAFROC figures of merit (FOMs) was lower in DBT plus mammography (0.937) than MRI plus mammography (0.978, P = 0.0006) but higher than mammography alone (0.900, P = 0 .0013). The sensitivity was lower in DBT plus mammography (88.2 %) than MRI plus mammography (97.8 %) but higher than mammography alone (78.3 %, both P < 0 .0001). The PPV was significantly higher in DBT plus mammography (93.3 %) than MRI plus mammography (89.6 %, P = 0 .0282).
Conclusions
DBT provided lower diagnostic performance than MRI as an adjunctive imaging to mammography. However, DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography and higher PPV than MRI.
Key Points
• Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus mammography was compared with MRI plus mammography.
• DBT had lower sensitivity and higher PPV than MRI.
• DBT had higher diagnostic performance than mammography.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300
Weinstein S, Rosen M (2010) Breast MR imaging: current indications and advanced imaging techniques. Radiol Clin N Am 48:1013–1042
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492
Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M (2013) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg 257:249–255
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476
Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220:13–30
Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888
Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308
Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM et al (2009) Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:586–591
Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507
Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O et al (2015) Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 274:772–780
Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X et al (2015) Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 274:85–92
Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M et al (2014) Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Anticancer Res 34:1219–1225
D'Orsi CJBL, Berg WA et al (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266:743–751
Obuchowski NA, Mazzone PJ, Dachman AH (2010) Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection. Eur Radiol 20:584–594
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110
Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J (1991) Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis—correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324:1–8
Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404
Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256
Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to characterize MRI-detected additional lesions unidentified at targeted ultrasound in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Eur Radiol 25:2673–2681
Clauser P, Carbonaro LA, Pancot M et al (2015) Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3720-5
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 267:47–56
Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113
Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449
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
Gur D, Rockette HE (2008) Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues. Acad Radiol 15:1312–1315
Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE et al (2011) Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:737–741
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Chris Woo, B.A. for his kind assistance in editing this manuscript. The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jung Min Chang. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This research was supported by Core Medical Device R & D Program (10043122) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE), Korea, and grant number (05-2014-0040) from Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund. Hojeong Won kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because this study is not on animals. Our study subjects or cohorts have not been previously reported. Methodology: retrospective, experimental, performed at one institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOCX 15 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, W.H., Chang, J.M., Moon, HG. 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 Radiol 26, 1556–1564 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3998-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3998-3