Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study
Creators
- 1. University of Genoa, Institute of Anatomy, Department of Experimental Medicine (DIMES), Genoa (Italy)
- 2. Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Citta della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Radiology University of Torino, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, Torino (Italy)
- 3. Ospedale Regionale di Bolzano, Bolzano (Italy)
- 4. Istituto di Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche, CNR-IMATI, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Genova (Italy)
- 5. University of Genoa, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Genoa (Italy)
- 6. IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Department of Breast Radiology, Genova (Italy)
- 7. University of Sydney, Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, Sydney (Australia)
Description
To compare DBT and FFDM in the classification of microcalcification clusters (MCs) using BI-RADS. This Institutional Review Board-approved study was undertaken in three centres. A total of 107 MCs evaluated with both DBT and FFDM were randomised for prospective reading by six experienced breast radiologists and classified using BI-RADS. The benign/malignant ratio of MC was 66/41. Of 11/107 discordant results, DBT classified MCs as R2 whereas FFDM classified them as R3 in 9 and R4 in 2. Three of these (3/107 = 2.8 %) were malignant; 8 (7.5 %) were nonmalignant and were correctly classified as R2 on DBT but incorrectly classified as R3 on FFDM. Estimated sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 100 % (95 % CI: 91 % to 100 %) and 94.6 % (95 % CI: 86.7 % to 98.5 %) for FFDM and 91.1 % (95 % CI: 78.8 % to 97.5 %) and 100 % (95 % CI: 94.8 % to 100 %) for DBT. Overall intra- and interobserver agreements were 0.75 (95 % CI: 0.61-0.84) and 0.73 (95 % CI: 0.62-0.78). Most MCs are scored similarly on FFDM and DBT. Although a minority (11/107) of MCs are classified differently on FFDM (benign MC classified as R3) and DBT (malignant MC classified as R2), this may have clinical relevance. (orig.)
Availability note (English)
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3402-8Additional details
Identifiers
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- European Radiology
- Journal Volume
- 25
- Journal Issue
- 1
- Journal Page Range
- p. 9-14
- ISSN
- 0938-7994
- CODEN
- EURAE3
INIS
- Country of Publication
- Germany
- Country of Input or Organization
- Germany
- INIS RN
- 46017882
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; CALCIUM OXIDES; CARCINOMAS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAMMARY GLANDS; SENSITIVITY; SOLID CLUSTERS; SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY; TWO-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS; X-RAY RADIOGRAPHY
- Descriptors DEC
- ALKALINE EARTH METAL COMPOUNDS; BODY; CALCIUM COMPOUNDS; CHALCOGENIDES; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; DISEASES; GLANDS; INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY; MATERIALS TESTING; MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; OXIDES; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; PROCESSING; RADIOLOGY; TESTING