Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience

Abstract

PurposeTo retrospectively evaluate the added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis in adjunct with mammography to characterize breast lesions. Materials and methodsOur institutional ethics committees approved the study and granted a waiver of informed consent. One hundred fifty-five women (mean age, 51.3 years, range: 24–92 years) who systematically underwent mammography and breast tomosynthesis with subsequent percutaneous biopsy were analyzed. Four radiologists (two seniors, R1 and R2, and two juniors, R3 and R4 with 30, 10, 3 and 1 years of experience in breast imaging, respectively) independently reviewed exams in two steps: mammography alone and tomosynthesis in adjunct with mammography. The lesions in the cohort included 39.3% (61/155) cancers, 2.5% (4/155) high-risk lesions and 58.1% (90/155) benign lesions. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to compare the results of the two readings. ResultsThere was almost perfect agreement irrespective of reader experience for the reading of the mammography in adjunct with tomosynthesis, whereas agreement was poor between junior and senior readers for the reading of mammography alone. Area under the ROC (Az) values for the tomosynthesis in adjunct with mammography were significantly better than Az values for mammography alone for all readers except the most experienced, for whom only a tendency was noted. The proportion of cancers undiagnosed by mammography alone that were well diagnosed by tomosynthesis in adjunct with mammography was 6.5% (4/61), 13.1% (8/61), 27.8% (17/61) and 26.2% (16/61) for Readers 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The proportion of false positive cases induced by the addition of breast tomosynthesis to mammography was 2.1% (2/94), 2.1% (2/94), 9.5% (9/94) and 12.7% (12/94) for Readers 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. ConclusionAdding breast tomosynthesis to mammography improved sensitivity and negative predictive value for all readers except for the most experienced one, in whom only a tendency for improvement was noted.