University of Pittsburgh, Department of Radiology, Radiology Imaging Research, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Acad Radiol. 2012 Feb;19(2):166-71. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003. Epub 2011 Nov 18.
The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the interpretive performance of synthetically reconstructed two-dimensional images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT.
Ten radiologists trained in reading tomosynthesis examinations interpreted retrospectively, under two modes, 114 mammograms. One mode included the directly acquired full-field digital mammograms combined with DBT, and the other included synthetically reconstructed projection images combined with DBT. The reconstructed images do not require additional radiation exposure. The two modes were compared with respect to sensitivity, namely, recommendation to recall a breast with either a pathology-proven cancer (n = 48) or a high-risk lesion (n = 6), and specificity, namely, no recommendation to recall a breast not depicting an abnormality (n = 144) or depicting only benign abnormalities (n = 30).
The average sensitivity for FFDM with DBT was 0.826, compared to 0.772 for synthetic FFDM with DBT (difference, 0.054; P = .017 and P = .053 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). The proportions of breasts with no or benign abnormalities recommended to be recalled were virtually the same: 0.298 and 0.297 for the two modalities, respectively (95% confidence intervals for the difference, -0.028 to 0.036 and -0.070 to 0.066 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). Sixteen additional clusters of microcalcifications ("positive" breasts) were missed by all readers combined when interpreting the mode with synthesized images versus FFDM.
Lower sensitivity with comparable specificity was observed with the tested version of synthetically generated images compared to FFDM, both combined with DBT. Improved synthesized images with experimentally verified acceptable diagnostic quality will be needed to eliminate double exposure during DBT-based screening.
本研究旨在回顾性比较合成二维图像与全数字化乳腺断层摄影术(FFDM)加数字乳腺断层摄影术(DBT)的诊断性能。
10 名接受过断层摄影术阅读培训的放射科医生以两种模式回顾性地解读了 114 例乳腺 X 线摄影。一种模式包括直接获得的全数字化乳腺 X 线摄影加 DBT,另一种模式包括合成的投影图像加 DBT。重建图像无需额外的辐射暴露。两种模式在敏感度方面进行了比较,即推荐召回经病理证实患有癌症(n=48)或高危病变(n=6)的乳房,以及特异性,即推荐召回无异常(n=144)或仅显示良性病变(n=30)的乳房。
FFDM 加 DBT 的平均敏感度为 0.826,而合成 FFDM 加 DBT 的敏感度为 0.772(差异为 0.054;固定效应和随机效应的 P 值分别为.017 和.053)。建议召回无病变或良性病变的乳房比例几乎相同:两种模式分别为 0.298 和 0.297(差异的 95%置信区间为-0.028 至 0.036 和-0.070 至 0.066,固定效应和随机效应)。当使用合成图像模式与 FFDM 进行解读时,所有读者共漏诊了 16 个簇状微钙化(“阳性”乳房)。
与 FFDM 加 DBT 相比,测试版本的合成生成图像的敏感度较低,但特异性相当。需要改进合成图像,以实验验证其具有可接受的诊断质量,以避免在基于 DBT 的筛查中进行双重曝光。