Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. The records of patient...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of roentgenology (1976) 2019-06, Vol.212 (6), p.1406-1411
Hauptverfasser: Simon, Katherine, Dodelzon, Katerina, Drotman, Michele, Levy, Allison, Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan, Askin, Gulce, Katzen, Janine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1411
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1406
container_title American journal of roentgenology (1976)
container_volume 212
creator Simon, Katherine
Dodelzon, Katerina
Drotman, Michele
Levy, Allison
Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan
Askin, Gulce
Katzen, Janine
description The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period ( = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.
doi_str_mv 10.2214/AJR.18.20520
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2199184727</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2199184727</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-5bcbb96fae0e091d429c5dee14f59282733a468e80e61692825c674b4e3fa67b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkElPwzAQRi0EoqVw44xy5ECKtzjOsWpZVVQJiuBmOY7TGiVxiB2k_HvSDXGaRW8-jR4AlwiOMUb0dvL8OkZ8jGGE4REYooiykCCKjsEQEoZCDsnnAJw59wUhjHkSn4IBgQmKIeZD0E6UahupusDmwVtX-bX2RgV4FrzIsrSrRtbrLpjaspaNzoIP49f9VP3oyhtbyWJDzszK-L79f7FIvTTV4YLMgqUtrdvmO-POwUkuC6cv9nUE3u_vltPHcL54eJpO5qHCCfJhlKo0TVguNdT9xxnFiYoyrRHNowRzHBMiKeOaQ80Q22wixWKaUk1yyeKUjMD1Lrdu7HernRelcUoXhay0bZ3AKEkQp3GfNAI3O1Q11rlG56JuTCmbTiAoNqJFL1ogLraie_xqn9ympc7-4INZ8gsN23jS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2199184727</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis</title><source>American Roentgen Ray Society</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Simon, Katherine ; Dodelzon, Katerina ; Drotman, Michele ; Levy, Allison ; Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan ; Askin, Gulce ; Katzen, Janine</creator><creatorcontrib>Simon, Katherine ; Dodelzon, Katerina ; Drotman, Michele ; Levy, Allison ; Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan ; Askin, Gulce ; Katzen, Janine</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period ( = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-803X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1546-3141</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20520</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30917028</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2019-06, Vol.212 (6), p.1406-1411</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-5bcbb96fae0e091d429c5dee14f59282733a468e80e61692825c674b4e3fa67b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-5bcbb96fae0e091d429c5dee14f59282733a468e80e61692825c674b4e3fa67b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4120,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30917028$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Simon, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dodelzon, Katerina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drotman, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Allison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Askin, Gulce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katzen, Janine</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis</title><title>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</title><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period ( = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.</description><issn>0361-803X</issn><issn>1546-3141</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkElPwzAQRi0EoqVw44xy5ECKtzjOsWpZVVQJiuBmOY7TGiVxiB2k_HvSDXGaRW8-jR4AlwiOMUb0dvL8OkZ8jGGE4REYooiykCCKjsEQEoZCDsnnAJw59wUhjHkSn4IBgQmKIeZD0E6UahupusDmwVtX-bX2RgV4FrzIsrSrRtbrLpjaspaNzoIP49f9VP3oyhtbyWJDzszK-L79f7FIvTTV4YLMgqUtrdvmO-POwUkuC6cv9nUE3u_vltPHcL54eJpO5qHCCfJhlKo0TVguNdT9xxnFiYoyrRHNowRzHBMiKeOaQ80Q22wixWKaUk1yyeKUjMD1Lrdu7HernRelcUoXhay0bZ3AKEkQp3GfNAI3O1Q11rlG56JuTCmbTiAoNqJFL1ogLraie_xqn9ympc7-4INZ8gsN23jS</recordid><startdate>201906</startdate><enddate>201906</enddate><creator>Simon, Katherine</creator><creator>Dodelzon, Katerina</creator><creator>Drotman, Michele</creator><creator>Levy, Allison</creator><creator>Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan</creator><creator>Askin, Gulce</creator><creator>Katzen, Janine</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201906</creationdate><title>Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis</title><author>Simon, Katherine ; Dodelzon, Katerina ; Drotman, Michele ; Levy, Allison ; Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan ; Askin, Gulce ; Katzen, Janine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-5bcbb96fae0e091d429c5dee14f59282733a468e80e61692825c674b4e3fa67b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Simon, Katherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dodelzon, Katerina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drotman, Michele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Allison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Askin, Gulce</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katzen, Janine</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Simon, Katherine</au><au>Dodelzon, Katerina</au><au>Drotman, Michele</au><au>Levy, Allison</au><au>Arleo, Elizabeth Kagan</au><au>Askin, Gulce</au><au>Katzen, Janine</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis</atitle><jtitle>American journal of roentgenology (1976)</jtitle><addtitle>AJR Am J Roentgenol</addtitle><date>2019-06</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>212</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1406</spage><epage>1411</epage><pages>1406-1411</pages><issn>0361-803X</issn><eissn>1546-3141</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period ( = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>30917028</pmid><doi>10.2214/AJR.18.20520</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-803X
ispartof American journal of roentgenology (1976), 2019-06, Vol.212 (6), p.1406-1411
issn 0361-803X
1546-3141
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2199184727
source American Roentgen Ray Society; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A05%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20Synthetic%202D%20Mammography%20Compared%20With%20Conventional%202D%20Digital%20Mammography%20Obtained%20With%203D%20Tomosynthesis&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20roentgenology%20(1976)&rft.au=Simon,%20Katherine&rft.date=2019-06&rft.volume=212&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1406&rft.epage=1411&rft.pages=1406-1411&rft.issn=0361-803X&rft.eissn=1546-3141&rft_id=info:doi/10.2214/AJR.18.20520&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2199184727%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2199184727&rft_id=info:pmid/30917028&rfr_iscdi=true