Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Two-View and Single-View Tomosynthesis versus Full-Field Digital Mammography: High-Resolution X-Ray Imaging Observer Study
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: Radiology, ISSN 0033-8419, E-ISSN 1527-1315, Vol. 262, no 3, 788-796 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) full-field digital mammography with that of two-view (mediolateral and craniocaudal) and single-view (mediolateral oblique) tomosynthesis in an observer study involving two institutions. Materials and Methods: Ethical committee approval was obtained. All participating women gave informed consent. Two hundred twenty women (mean age, 56.3; range, 40-80 years) with breast density of 2-4 according to American College of Radiology criteria were recruited between November 2008 and September 2009 and underwent standard treatment plus tomosynthesis with a prototype photon-counting machine. After exclusion criteria were met, this resulted in a final test set of 130 women. Ten accredited readers classified the 130 cases (40 cancers, 24 benign lesions, and 66 normal images) using 2D mammography and two-view tomosynthesis. Another 10 readers reviewed the same cases using 2D mammography but single-view tomosynthesis. The multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method was applied. The significance of the observed difference in accuracy between 2D mammography and tomosynthesis was calculated. Results: For diagnostic accuracy, 2D mammography performed significantly worse than two-view tomosynthesis (average area under ROC curve [AUC] = 0.772 for 2D, AUC = 0.851 for tomosynthesis, P = .021). Significant differences were found for both masses and microcalcification (P = .037 and .049). The difference in AUC between the two modalities of 20.110 was significant (P = .03) only for the five readers with the least experience (<10 years of reading); with AUC of 20.047 for the five readers with 10 years or more experience (P = .25). No significant difference (P = .79) in reader performance was seen when 2D mammography (average AUC = 0.774) was compared with single-view tomosynthesis (average AUC = 0.775). Conclusion: Two-view tomosynthesis outperforms 2D mammography but only for readers with the least experience. The benefits were seen for both masses and microcalcification. No differences in classification accuracy was seen between and 2D mammography and single-view tomosynthesis.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 262, no 3, 788-796 p.
National Category
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-93652DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11103514ISI: 000302121400007ScopusID: 2-s2.0-84858713666OAI: diva2:517456
EU, European Research Council
QC 20120423Available from: 2012-04-23 Created: 2012-04-23 Last updated: 2012-04-23Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Danielsson, Mats
By organisation
Medical Imaging
In the same journal
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 33 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link