Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 4 , Pages 450-455 , April 2010

Time to Diagnosis and Performance Levels during Repeat Interpretations of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Preliminary Observations

  • Margarita L. Zuley, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: M.L.Z.
    • ,
  • Andriy I. Bandos, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • Gordon S. Abrams, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • Cathy Cohen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • Christiane M. Hakim, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • Jules H. Sumkin, DO

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • John Drescher, BS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radiology Imaging Research, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • Howard E. Rockette, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
    • ,
  • David Gur, ScD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radiology Imaging Research, University of Pittsburgh, 3362 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Received 18 September 2009 ,Accepted 8 November 2009.

References 

  1. Rafferty EA. Digital mammography: novel applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:831–843
  2. Lewin JM, Niklason L. Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol. 2007;42:243–252
  3. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399–406
  4. Niklason LT, Kopans DB, Hamberg LM. Digital breast imaging: tomosynthesis and digital subtraction mammography. Breast Dis. 1998;10:151–164
  5. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, et al. Evaluation of linear and non-linear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:219–224
  6. Wu T, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, et al. A comparison of reconstruction algorithms for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2004;31:2636–2647
  7. Smith A. Full-field breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Manage. 2005;27:25–31
  8. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, 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
  9. Moore RH, Stewart A, Wu T, et al. Second-generation digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the screening setting: workflow and preliminary results. Presented at RSNA. 2005;[SSG01–SSG07]
  10. Chan HP, Wei J, Sahiner B, et al. Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. Radiology. 2005;237:1075–1018
  11. Chen SC, Carton AK, Albert M, et al. Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:229–238
  12. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CH, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:616–623
  13. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:865–869
  14. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis—an observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:586–591
  15. Gur D, Rockette HE. Performance assessments of diagnostic systems under the FROC paradigm: experimental, analytical, and results interpretation issues. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:1312–1315
  16. Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, Wu , et al. Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images. Med Phys. 2006;33:482–491
  17. Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, et al. Computerized detection of mass lesions in digital breast tomosynthesis images using two- and three dimensional radial gradient index segmentation. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2004;3:437–441
  18. Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Edwards AV, et al. Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study. Med Phys. 2008;35:1486–1493
  19. Moore RH, Levy A, Stewart A, et al. Reading behavior for screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to conventional 2D mammography (CM). Presented at RSNA. 2006;[SSG01–SSG05]
  20. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Conant EF, et al. Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: gaze-tracking study. Radiology. 2007;242:396–402
  21. Mello-Thoms C, Hardesty L, Sumkin J, et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol. 2005;12:830–840

 Supported in part by Grant BCTR0600733 (to the University of Pittsburgh) from the Susan G. Komen foundation.

PII: S1076-6332(09)00636-9

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.11.011

Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 4 , Pages 450-455 , April 2010

Article Tools