Breast cancer detection: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis across non-dense and dense breasts

Breast density is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk and limits early detection of the disease. This study assesses the diagnostic performance of mammogram readers in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Eleven breast readers with 1–39 years of experience r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiography (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2021-11, Vol.27 (4), p.1027-1032
Hauptverfasser: Hadadi, I., Rae, W., Clarke, J., McEntee, M., Ekpo, E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1032
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1027
container_title Radiography (London, England. 1995)
container_volume 27
creator Hadadi, I.
Rae, W.
Clarke, J.
McEntee, M.
Ekpo, E.
description Breast density is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk and limits early detection of the disease. This study assesses the diagnostic performance of mammogram readers in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Eleven breast readers with 1–39 years of experience reading mammograms and 0–4 years of experience reading DBT participated in the study. All readers independently interpreted 60 DM cases (40 normal/20 abnormal) and 35 DBT cases (20 normal/15 abnormal). Sensitivity, specificity, ROC AUC, and diagnostic confidence were calculated and compared between DM and DBT. DBT significantly improved diagnostic confidence in both dense breasts (p = 0.03) and non-dense breasts (p = 0.003) but not in other diagnostic performance metrics. Specificity was higher in DM for readers with >7 years' experience (p = 0.03) in reading mammography, non-radiologists (p = 0.04), readers who had completed a 3–6 months training fellowship in breast imaging (p = 0.04), and those with ≤2 years’ experience in reading DBT (p = 0.02), particularly in non-dense breasts. Diagnostic confidence was higher in DBT when compared to DM. In contrast, other performance metrics appeared to be similar or better with DM and may be influenced by the lack of experience of the reader cohort in reading DBT. The benefits of DBT may not be entirely accrued until radiologists attain expertise in DBT interpretation. Specificity of DBT varied according to reader characteristics, and these characteristics may be useful for optimising pairing strategies in independent double reading of DBT as practiced in Australia to reduce false positive diagnostic errors.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.radi.2021.04.002
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2519314283</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1078817421000419</els_id><sourcerecordid>2519314283</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-4d162c451cf5b1362e8e586a66d5e35036c1ece75c6c04062c4a3fcfa5bc148b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLtOwzAUhi0EotxegAF5ZEnwJXZTxAIVNwmJBWbLsU_AVWMXO0XqwrPjNqUjk4-s7_91zofQOSUlJVRezcqorSsZYbQkVUkI20NHVHBWsJrT_TyTcV3UdFyN0HFKM5KJitWHaMT5hMia8CP0cxdBpx4b7Q1EbKEH07vgr_E0dAsdXQoehxZb9-F6Pced7rrwEfXic4W1t7v_ZqjpQxfSyvefkFzC2sSQEvbBFxZ8giGxmQY-naKDVs8TnG3fE_T-cP82fSpeXh-fp7cvheFC9kVlqWSmEtS0oqFcMqhB1FJLaQVwQbg0FAyMhZGGVGTNat6aVovG0Kpu-Am6HHoXMXwtIfWqc8nAfK49hGVSTNAJp1kOzygb0M3yEVq1iK7TcaUoUWvvaqbW3tXauyKVylZz6GLbv2w6sLvIn-gM3AwA5Cu_HUSVjIPs3LqYjSsb3H_9v63Pllc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2519314283</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Breast cancer detection: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis across non-dense and dense breasts</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hadadi, I. ; Rae, W. ; Clarke, J. ; McEntee, M. ; Ekpo, E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hadadi, I. ; Rae, W. ; Clarke, J. ; McEntee, M. ; Ekpo, E.</creatorcontrib><description>Breast density is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk and limits early detection of the disease. This study assesses the diagnostic performance of mammogram readers in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Eleven breast readers with 1–39 years of experience reading mammograms and 0–4 years of experience reading DBT participated in the study. All readers independently interpreted 60 DM cases (40 normal/20 abnormal) and 35 DBT cases (20 normal/15 abnormal). Sensitivity, specificity, ROC AUC, and diagnostic confidence were calculated and compared between DM and DBT. DBT significantly improved diagnostic confidence in both dense breasts (p = 0.03) and non-dense breasts (p = 0.003) but not in other diagnostic performance metrics. Specificity was higher in DM for readers with &gt;7 years' experience (p = 0.03) in reading mammography, non-radiologists (p = 0.04), readers who had completed a 3–6 months training fellowship in breast imaging (p = 0.04), and those with ≤2 years’ experience in reading DBT (p = 0.02), particularly in non-dense breasts. Diagnostic confidence was higher in DBT when compared to DM. In contrast, other performance metrics appeared to be similar or better with DM and may be influenced by the lack of experience of the reader cohort in reading DBT. The benefits of DBT may not be entirely accrued until radiologists attain expertise in DBT interpretation. Specificity of DBT varied according to reader characteristics, and these characteristics may be useful for optimising pairing strategies in independent double reading of DBT as practiced in Australia to reduce false positive diagnostic errors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-8174</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2831</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.04.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33906803</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Breast cancer ; Breast density ; Digital breast tomosynthesis ; Digital mammography ; Mammogram readers</subject><ispartof>Radiography (London, England. 1995), 2021-11, Vol.27 (4), p.1027-1032</ispartof><rights>2021</rights><rights>Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-4d162c451cf5b1362e8e586a66d5e35036c1ece75c6c04062c4a3fcfa5bc148b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-4d162c451cf5b1362e8e586a66d5e35036c1ece75c6c04062c4a3fcfa5bc148b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7045-2190 ; 0000-0002-3866-8562 ; 0000-0003-3241-1229</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817421000419$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33906803$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hadadi, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rae, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McEntee, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekpo, E.</creatorcontrib><title>Breast cancer detection: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis across non-dense and dense breasts</title><title>Radiography (London, England. 1995)</title><addtitle>Radiography (Lond)</addtitle><description>Breast density is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk and limits early detection of the disease. This study assesses the diagnostic performance of mammogram readers in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Eleven breast readers with 1–39 years of experience reading mammograms and 0–4 years of experience reading DBT participated in the study. All readers independently interpreted 60 DM cases (40 normal/20 abnormal) and 35 DBT cases (20 normal/15 abnormal). Sensitivity, specificity, ROC AUC, and diagnostic confidence were calculated and compared between DM and DBT. DBT significantly improved diagnostic confidence in both dense breasts (p = 0.03) and non-dense breasts (p = 0.003) but not in other diagnostic performance metrics. Specificity was higher in DM for readers with &gt;7 years' experience (p = 0.03) in reading mammography, non-radiologists (p = 0.04), readers who had completed a 3–6 months training fellowship in breast imaging (p = 0.04), and those with ≤2 years’ experience in reading DBT (p = 0.02), particularly in non-dense breasts. Diagnostic confidence was higher in DBT when compared to DM. In contrast, other performance metrics appeared to be similar or better with DM and may be influenced by the lack of experience of the reader cohort in reading DBT. The benefits of DBT may not be entirely accrued until radiologists attain expertise in DBT interpretation. Specificity of DBT varied according to reader characteristics, and these characteristics may be useful for optimising pairing strategies in independent double reading of DBT as practiced in Australia to reduce false positive diagnostic errors.</description><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast density</subject><subject>Digital breast tomosynthesis</subject><subject>Digital mammography</subject><subject>Mammogram readers</subject><issn>1078-8174</issn><issn>1532-2831</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLtOwzAUhi0EotxegAF5ZEnwJXZTxAIVNwmJBWbLsU_AVWMXO0XqwrPjNqUjk4-s7_91zofQOSUlJVRezcqorSsZYbQkVUkI20NHVHBWsJrT_TyTcV3UdFyN0HFKM5KJitWHaMT5hMia8CP0cxdBpx4b7Q1EbKEH07vgr_E0dAsdXQoehxZb9-F6Pced7rrwEfXic4W1t7v_ZqjpQxfSyvefkFzC2sSQEvbBFxZ8giGxmQY-naKDVs8TnG3fE_T-cP82fSpeXh-fp7cvheFC9kVlqWSmEtS0oqFcMqhB1FJLaQVwQbg0FAyMhZGGVGTNat6aVovG0Kpu-Am6HHoXMXwtIfWqc8nAfK49hGVSTNAJp1kOzygb0M3yEVq1iK7TcaUoUWvvaqbW3tXauyKVylZz6GLbv2w6sLvIn-gM3AwA5Cu_HUSVjIPs3LqYjSsb3H_9v63Pllc</recordid><startdate>20211101</startdate><enddate>20211101</enddate><creator>Hadadi, I.</creator><creator>Rae, W.</creator><creator>Clarke, J.</creator><creator>McEntee, M.</creator><creator>Ekpo, E.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-2190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3866-8562</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3241-1229</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211101</creationdate><title>Breast cancer detection: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis across non-dense and dense breasts</title><author>Hadadi, I. ; Rae, W. ; Clarke, J. ; McEntee, M. ; Ekpo, E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-4d162c451cf5b1362e8e586a66d5e35036c1ece75c6c04062c4a3fcfa5bc148b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast density</topic><topic>Digital breast tomosynthesis</topic><topic>Digital mammography</topic><topic>Mammogram readers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hadadi, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rae, W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McEntee, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ekpo, E.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiography (London, England. 1995)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hadadi, I.</au><au>Rae, W.</au><au>Clarke, J.</au><au>McEntee, M.</au><au>Ekpo, E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Breast cancer detection: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis across non-dense and dense breasts</atitle><jtitle>Radiography (London, England. 1995)</jtitle><addtitle>Radiography (Lond)</addtitle><date>2021-11-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1027</spage><epage>1032</epage><pages>1027-1032</pages><issn>1078-8174</issn><eissn>1532-2831</eissn><abstract>Breast density is associated with an increase in breast cancer risk and limits early detection of the disease. This study assesses the diagnostic performance of mammogram readers in digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Eleven breast readers with 1–39 years of experience reading mammograms and 0–4 years of experience reading DBT participated in the study. All readers independently interpreted 60 DM cases (40 normal/20 abnormal) and 35 DBT cases (20 normal/15 abnormal). Sensitivity, specificity, ROC AUC, and diagnostic confidence were calculated and compared between DM and DBT. DBT significantly improved diagnostic confidence in both dense breasts (p = 0.03) and non-dense breasts (p = 0.003) but not in other diagnostic performance metrics. Specificity was higher in DM for readers with &gt;7 years' experience (p = 0.03) in reading mammography, non-radiologists (p = 0.04), readers who had completed a 3–6 months training fellowship in breast imaging (p = 0.04), and those with ≤2 years’ experience in reading DBT (p = 0.02), particularly in non-dense breasts. Diagnostic confidence was higher in DBT when compared to DM. In contrast, other performance metrics appeared to be similar or better with DM and may be influenced by the lack of experience of the reader cohort in reading DBT. The benefits of DBT may not be entirely accrued until radiologists attain expertise in DBT interpretation. Specificity of DBT varied according to reader characteristics, and these characteristics may be useful for optimising pairing strategies in independent double reading of DBT as practiced in Australia to reduce false positive diagnostic errors.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>33906803</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.radi.2021.04.002</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-2190</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3866-8562</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3241-1229</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1078-8174
ispartof Radiography (London, England. 1995), 2021-11, Vol.27 (4), p.1027-1032
issn 1078-8174
1532-2831
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2519314283
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Breast cancer
Breast density
Digital breast tomosynthesis
Digital mammography
Mammogram readers
title Breast cancer detection: Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis across non-dense and dense breasts
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T19%3A36%3A08IST&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=Breast%20cancer%20detection:%20Comparison%20of%20digital%20mammography%20and%20digital%20breast%20tomosynthesis%20across%20non-dense%20and%20dense%20breasts&rft.jtitle=Radiography%20(London,%20England.%201995)&rft.au=Hadadi,%20I.&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1027&rft.epage=1032&rft.pages=1027-1032&rft.issn=1078-8174&rft.eissn=1532-2831&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.radi.2021.04.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2519314283%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=2519314283&rft_id=info:pmid/33906803&rft_els_id=S1078817421000419&rfr_iscdi=true