Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography versus tomosynthesis: effect of radiologists' experience
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: Medical Imaging 2012: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2012, Vol. 8318, 83180-83180 p.Conference paper (Refereed)Text
Abstract [en]

Purpose: To investigate whether readers' experience affects performance in a study comparing 2D digital mammography (2D) with 2-view (CC and MLO) or 1-view (MLO) tomosynthesis. Materials and Methods: One-hundred-thirty 2D cases were collected from screening assessment and referral clinics; 64 of the cases had verified abnormalities and the remaining were confirmed normal. Two-view tomosynthesis images were obtained from the same patients. Ten accredited readers (5 with ≥ 10 years experience in mammography and 5 with < 10 years) classified the cases in terms of malignancy (rate 0-5), and recall (yes/no), for both modalities. A second experiment was performed with the same cases, with 10 other readers (again 5 experienced / 5 less experienced), but using 2D and 1-view tomosynthesis as the two modalities. The multi-reader-multi-case ROC method was applied and the significance of diagnostic accuracy difference of 2D vs tomosynthesis was calculated, as a function of experience and for each experiment. Recall rate (RR) on malignant and benign cases was also calculated, along with reading time. Results: No significant difference was reached between 2D and 2-view tomosynthesis for experienced readers (pvalue= 0.25); for less experienced readers the p-value was significant (0.03). No significant difference was found between 2D and 1-view tomosynthesis, independent of readers' experience. RR for benign cases decreased for tomosynthesis (for booth 1- and 2-view), independent of experience. Average reading time per case was 79 s (range 65- 91 s) and 134 s (range 119-158 s) for experienced readers; 56 s (range 46-67 s) and 115s (range 97-142 s) for nonexperienced, for 2D and 2-view tomosynthesis respectively. Reading time was 74 s (range 43-98 s) and 99 s (range 73- 117 s) for experienced readers; 74 s (range 62-85 s) and 94 s (range 82-137 s) for non-experienced, for 2D and 1-view tomosynthesis respectively. Conclusions: For experienced readers, there is no evidence of improved diagnostic accuracy when using 2-view or 1- view tomosynthesis, while less experienced readers perform better with 2-view tomosynthesis than 2D images. Tomosynthesis reduces the number of recall of benign cases, without hindering cancer detection.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2012. Vol. 8318, 83180-83180 p.
Series
, SPIE Proceedings, ISSN 0277-786X ; 8318
Keyword [en]
Medical Imaging, Diagnostic, digital mammography, tomosynthesis
National Category
Medical Engineering Medical Image Processing
Research subject
Physics; Medical Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-186028DOI: 10.1117/12.905276ISI: 000304905600029ISBN: 978-0-8194-8967-8OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-186028DiVA: diva2:924968
Conference
Conference on Medical Imaging - Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, FEB 08-09, 2012, San Diego, CA
Note

QC 20160509

Available from: 2016-04-29 Created: 2016-04-29 Last updated: 2016-05-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full texthttp://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1346088

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Danielsson, Mats
Medical EngineeringMedical Image Processing

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: 7 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link