Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening - PubMed (original) (raw)
Review
Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening
Tony M Svahn et al. Breast. 2015 Dec.
Abstract
We examined interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection (TP, FP) for radiologists screen-reading with digital breast tomosynthesis as adjunct to full-field digital mammography (2D/3D) relative to 2D alone in population-based screening studies. A systematic literature search was performed to identify screening studies that provided radiologist-specific data for TP and FP detection. Radiologist interpretive efficiency (trade-off between TPs and FPs) was calculated using the FP:TP ratio which expresses the number of FP recalls for each screen-detected breast cancer. We modeled a pooled FP:TP ratio to assess variability in radiologists' interpretive efficiency at study-level using random effects logistic regression. FP:TP ratio improved (ratio decreased) for 2D/3D screen-reading (relative to 2D) for a majority of radiologists (18 of 22) across all studies. Variability in radiologists' FP:TP ratio was consistently lower in all studies for 2D/3D screen-reading, as suggested by lower variance in ratios. Study-level pooled FP:TP ratio for 2D- and 2D/3D-mammography respectively, were 5.96 (95%CI: 4.08 to 8.72) and 3.17 (95%CI: 2.25 to 4.47) for the STORM trial; 10.25 (95%CI: 6.42 to 16.35) and 7.07 (95%CI: 4.99 to 10.02) for the Oslo trial; and 20.84 (95%CI: 13.95 to 31.12) and 8.37 (95%CI: 5.87 to 11.93) for the Houston study. This transfers into study-level improved interpretative efficiencies of 48%, 30% and 55%, respectively, for 2D/3D screen-reading (relative to 2D). In summary, study-level FP:TP trade-off improved using 2D/3D-mammography for all studies, which was also seen for most individual radiologists. There was variability in the FP:TP trade-off between readers and studies for 2D-as well as for 2D/3D-interpretations but variability in radiologists' interpretive efficiency was relatively lower using 2D/3D-mammography.
Keywords: Digital breast tomosynthesis; Interpretive efficiency; Mammography; Population screening; Reader variability.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
- Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial.
Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Montemezzi S, Houssami N. Bernardi D, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014 May;50(7):1232-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.004. Epub 2014 Feb 28. Eur J Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24582915 - Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.
Bernardi D, Li T, Pellegrini M, Macaskill P, Valentini M, Fantò C, Ostillio L, Houssami N. Bernardi D, et al. Eur J Radiol. 2018 Sep;106:26-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.008. Epub 2018 Jul 10. Eur J Radiol. 2018. PMID: 30150047 - Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo P, Fantò C, Valentini M, Ciatto S. Houssami N, et al. Eur J Cancer. 2014 Jul;50(10):1799-1807. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.017. Epub 2014 Apr 17. Eur J Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24746887 - Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: A pictorial review of screen-detected cancers and false recalls attributed to tomosynthesis in prospective screening trials.
Houssami N, Lång K, Bernardi D, Tagliafico A, Zackrisson S, Skaane P. Houssami N, et al. Breast. 2016 Apr;26:119-34. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.01.007. Epub 2016 Feb 18. Breast. 2016. PMID: 27017251 Review. - Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection.
Houssami N, Skaane P. Houssami N, et al. Breast. 2013 Apr;22(2):101-108. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017. Epub 2013 Feb 16. Breast. 2013. PMID: 23422255 Review.
Cited by
- Improved breast lesion detection in mammogram images using a deep neural network.
Zhou W, Zhang X, Ding J, Deng L, Cheng G, Wang X. Zhou W, et al. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023 Jul 20;29(4):588-595. doi: 10.4274/dir.2022.22826. Epub 2023 Mar 20. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023. PMID: 36994940 Free PMC article. - An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques.
Brisbane W, Bailey MR, Sorensen MD. Brisbane W, et al. Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Nov;13(11):654-662. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.154. Epub 2016 Aug 31. Nat Rev Urol. 2016. PMID: 27578040 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous