Accuracy of Synthetic 2D Mammography Compared With Conventional 2D Digital Mammography Obtained With 3D Tomosynthesis. 2019

Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
All authors: Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E 68th St, New York, NY 10065.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of synthetic 2D imaging generated from 3D tomosynthesis (DBT) with traditional 2D full-field digital mammography (FFDM) by use of the most up-to-date software algorithm in an urban academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The records of patients undergoing screening mammography with DBT, synthetic 2D imaging, and FFDM between August 13, 2014, and January 31, 2016, were retrospectively collected. The cohort included all biopsy-proven breast cancers detected with screening mammography during the study period (n = 89) and 100 cases of negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) findings after 365 days of follow-up. In separate sessions, three readers blinded to outcome reviewed DBT plus synthetic 2D or DBT plus FFDM screening mammograms and assigned a BI-RADS category and probability of malignancy to each case. The diagnostic performance of each modality was assessed by calculating sensitivity and specificity. Reader performance was assessed by ROC analysis to estimate the AUC of the likelihood of malignancy. RESULTS. No statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, or negative predictive value) between DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and DBT plus FFDM. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC of DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography and the AUC of DBT plus FFDM for any reader. CONCLUSION. DBT plus synthetic 2D mammography performs as well as and not worse than DBT plus FFDM in measures of diagnostic accuracy and may be a viable alternative for decreasing radiation dose without sacrificing diagnostic performance.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
December 2017, Hormone molecular biology and clinical investigation,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
August 2016, The Lancet. Oncology,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
April 2010, Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987),
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
January 2021, Clinical imaging,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
September 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
February 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
June 2018, The British journal of radiology,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
June 2018, Radiology,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
September 2017, European journal of radiology,
Katherine Simon, and Katerina Dodelzon, and Michele Drotman, and Allison Levy, and Elizabeth Kagan Arleo, and Gulce Askin, and Janine Katzen
February 2021, The British journal of radiology,
Copied contents to your clipboard!