Two-View Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: Comparison with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammographic Images
Two-View Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening with Synthetically Reconstructed Projection Images: Comparison with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Full-Field Digital Mammographic Images
复制标题
DOI：
10.1148/radiol.13131391
复制
发表时间：
2014-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
19.7
通讯作者：
Gullien, Randi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Skaane, Per;Bandos, Andriy I.;Gullien, Randi
目的：为了比较两个版本的重建二维（2D）图像与数字乳腺断层合成摄影（DBT）与标准的全视野数字乳腺X射线摄影（FFDM）加DBT.Materials和Methods的性能相结合的性能：本试验已获得伦理委员会的批准，所有参与者都提供了书面知情同意书。对年龄在50至69岁（平均年龄59.2岁）之间的女性进行的检查（n = 24901）进行了前瞻性解释，作为筛选试验的一部分，包括对FFDM + DBT和重建的2D图像+DBT的独立解释。重建的2D图像不需要辐射暴露。使用二进制数据的分析，占相关的解释，并调整为读者特定的体积，两个版本试验期1期间使用的重建2D图像（初始和当前）（2010年11月22日至2011年12月21日; 12 631名妇女）和2（2012年1月20日至2012年12月19日;在癌症检测和假阳性率方面与相应的FFDM加DBT解释进行了比较。对于第1阶段的FFDM + DBT、第1阶段的初始重建2D图像+DBT、第2阶段的FFDM + DBT和第2阶段的当前重建2D图像+DBT，癌症检出率分别为每1000次筛查检查8.0、7.4、7.8和7.7例。假阳性评分分别为5.3%、4.6%、4.6%和4.5%。相应的阅片者调整的假阳性评分配对比较显示，第1阶段的差异显著（P = 0.012），但第2阶段不存在（比率= 0.99; 95%置信区间：0.88，1.11; P = 0.85）。当前重建的2D图像和DBT的组合与FFDM + DBT相比，足以用于常规临床使用，解读筛查乳房X光片(C)RSNA，2014年
Purpose: To compare the performance of two versions of reconstructed two-dimensional (2D) images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus the performance of standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT.Materials and Methods: This trial had ethical committee approval, and all participants gave written informed consent. Examinations (n = 24 901) in women between the ages of 50 and 69 years (mean age, 59.2 years) were interpreted prospectively as part of a screening trial that included independent interpretations of FFDM plus DBT and reconstructed 2D images plus DBT. Reconstructed 2D images do not require radiation exposure. Using analyses for binary data that accounted for correlated interpretations and were adjusted for reader-specific volume, two versions (initial and current) of reconstructed 2D images used during trial periods 1 (from November 22, 2010, to December 21, 2011; 12 631 women) and 2 (from January 20, 2012, to December 19, 2012; 12 270 women) were compared in terms of cancer detection and false-positive rates with the corresponding FFDM plus DBT interpretations.Results: Cancer detection rates were 8.0, 7.4, 7.8, and 7.7 per 1000 screening examinations for FFDM plus DBT in period 1, initial reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 1, FFDM plus DBT in period 2, and current reconstructed 2D images plus DBT in period 2, respectively. False-positive scores were 5.3%, 4.6%, 4.6%, and 4.5%, respectively. Corresponding reader-adjusted paired comparisons of false-positive scores revealed significant differences for period 1 (P = .012) but not for period 2 (ratio = 0.99; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 1.11; P = .85).Conclusion: The combination of current reconstructed 2D images and DBT performed comparably to FFDM plus DBT and is adequate for routine clinical use when interpreting screening mammograms. (C) RSNA, 2014