Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제16권2호
  • /
  • Pages.229-238
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characterization of Breast Lesions: Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasonography

  • Kim, Sun Ah (Department of Radiology, Human Medical Imaging & Intervention Center) ;
  • Chang, Jung Min (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Nariya (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Yi, Ann (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center) ;
  • Moon, Woo Kyung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2014.08.01
  • 심사 : 2014.12.26
  • 발행 : 2015.04.01
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional breast ultrasound (US) to characterize breast lesions as benign or malignant. Materials and Methods: A total of 332 women, presenting for screening examinations or for breast biopsy between March and June 2012 were recruited to undergo digital mammography (DM), DBT, and breast US examination. Among them, 113 patients with 119 breast lesions depicted on DM were finally included. Three blinded radiologists performed an enriched reader study and reviewed the DBT and US images. Each reader analyzed the lesions in random order, assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors, rated the images for the likelihood of malignancy (%) and made a BI-RADS final assessment. Diagnostic accuracy, as assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity of DBT and US were compared. Results: Among the 119 breast lesions depicted on DM, 75 were malignant and the remaining 44 were benign. The average diagnostic performance for characterizing breast lesions as benign or malignant in terms of area under the curve was 0.899 for DBT and 0.914 for US (p = 0.394). Mean sensitivity (97.3% vs. 98.7%, p = 0.508) and specificity (44.7% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.360) were also not significantly different. Conclusion: Digital breast tomosynthesis may provide similar reader lesion characterization performance to that of US for breast lesions depicted on DM.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1784-1792 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050518
  2. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, Bjorneld L, Bordas P, Tabar L, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011;117:714-722 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25650
  3. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Grontoft O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985;1:829-832
  4. Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 2003;361:1405-1410 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13143-1
  5. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screendetected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
  6. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540010035027
  7. Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:299-308 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11520
  8. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205:399-406 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356620
  9. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1545-1553 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5
  10. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:865-869 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2841
  11. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:586-591 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2031
  12. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:320-324 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4656
  13. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescinito G, Monetti F, et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012;22:539-544 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2305-1
  14. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, van Tinteren H, Rutgers EJ, Muller SH, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16-24 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1523-2
  15. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 2012;262:61-68 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101763
  16. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W172-W176 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3244
  17. Frazier TG, Murphy JT, Furlong A. The selected use of ultrasound mammography to improve diagnostic accuracy in carcinoma of the breast. J Surg Oncol 1985;29:231-232 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.2930290407
  18. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2213010364
  19. Bassett LW. Imaging of breast masses. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:669-691, vii-viii https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70193-7
  20. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001;219:186-191 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01ap35186
  21. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007;244:87-93 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2441060258
  22. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:935-940 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800935
  23. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, Feig SA, Jackson VP, Kopans DB, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BIRADS: Mammography, 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2003
  24. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CB, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound, 1st ed. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2003
  25. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266:104-113 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674
  26. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 2013;266:89-95 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120552
  27. Vercauteren LD, Kessels AG, van der Weijden T, Koster D, Severens JL, van Engelshoven JM, et al. Clinical impact of the use of additional ultrasonography in diagnostic breast imaging. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2076-2084 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0983-0
  28. Flobbe K, Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Nelemans PJ, von Meyenfeldt MF, et al. The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:1194-1199 https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.10.1194
  29. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berliere M, Berg BV, D'Hoore W, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1675-1679 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.6.1801675
  30. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2817-2825 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9
  31. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-391 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392042127
  32. Lee SH, Chang JM, Cho N, Koo HR, Yi A, Kim SJ, et al. Practice guideline for the performance of breast ultrasound elastography. Ultrasonography 2014;33:3-10

피인용 문헌

  1. Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea vol.17, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.489
  2. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  3. Addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Diagnostic Setting: Additional Value and Cancer Detectability vol.19, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2016.19.4.438
  4. Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for Differentiation of Breast Lesions : A Meta-analysis vol.35, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.15.10005
  5. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: Comparison of the diagnostic performance and vol.85, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.007
  6. Additional Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Detected Suspicious Lesions in Known Patients With Breast Cancer : Comparison of Second-Look Digital Tomosynthesis and Ultrasonography vol.33, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/ruq.0000000000000273
  7. Adjunctive Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging for Detecting Cancer in Women with Calcifications at Mammography vol.24, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6058-1
  8. Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea vol.18, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.624
  9. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  10. β-아밀로이드 단백질 생성에 대한 톱니모자반(Sargassum serratifolium) 추출물의 효과 vol.50, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5657/kfas.2017.0085
  11. 3D Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Comparison with 2D Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Mammography in the Detection of Calcifications vol.77, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2017.77.2.105
  12. Interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary study on comparison with picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and dedicated workstation vol.90, pp.1077, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170182
  13. Diagnostic Value of Nineteen Different Imaging Methods for Patients with Breast Cancer: a Network Meta-Analysis vol.46, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1159/000489443
  14. Deformable mapping technique to correlate lesions in digital breast tomosynthesis and automated breast ultrasound images vol.45, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13113
  15. A Noninvasive Blood-based Combinatorial Proteomic Biomarker Assay to Detect Breast Cancer in Women over age 50 with BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 Assessment vol.25, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-0843
  16. Effect of a Deep Learning Framework-Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis System on the Diagnostic Performance of Radiologists in Differentiating between Malignant and Benign Masses on Breast Ultrasonography vol.20, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0530
  17. Advanced approaches to imaging primary breast cancer: an update vol.7, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-019-00346-z
  18. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography and full-field digital mammography alone or in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis vol.27, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00992-1
  19. Breast cancer diagnosis using abnormalities on ipsilateral views of digital mammograms vol.40, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbe.2019.04.008
  20. Characterization of breast masses: a comparative study between automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vol.51, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00161-x
  21. 3D digital breast tomosynthesis versus US in evaluating breast asymmetries vol.51, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00196-0
  22. Does automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) add to breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in assessment of lesions in dense breasts? vol.52, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-021-00556-4