Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities – a multi-reader study

P. Whelehan (Lead / Corresponding author), S. H. Heywang-Köbrunner, S. J. Vinnicombe, A. Hacker, A. Jaensch, A. Hapca, R. Gray, M. Jenkin, K. Lowry, R. Oeppen, M. Reilly, M. Stahnke, A. Evans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)
304 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of standard screening images plus single-viewdigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), using Siemens DBT equipment, with standard screeningimages plus supplementary mammographic views in non-calcific, screen-detected mammographicabnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were unselected women aged 50e69 years recalledwithin a population-based European breast screening programme for assessment of soft-tissuemammographic abnormalities. Supplementary mammographic views (SMVs) and DBT wereperformed in all cases. A range of equipment was used for screening and supplementarymammography, but all DBT examinations were performed using the Siemens MammomatInspiration. A retrospective multi-reader study including 238 cases for whom either histologyor at least 2 years’ follow-up was available was performed with eight suitably accredited UKbreast screening personnel reading all cases under both conditions, with temporal separation.Readers were blinded to case outcomes and findings from other examinations. Diagnosticaccuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was compared betweenscreening plus SMV images and screening plus DBT images. The study was powered to detect a3% inferiority margin in diagnostic accuracy between methods. RESULTS: The final sample with complete data available for analysis included 195 benigncases (1,560 reads) and 35 malignant cases (280 reads). The DBT method yielded a slightly higher area under the curve (AUC) value than the SMV method (0.870 versus 0.857), but thedifference was not statistically significant (p¼0.4890), indicating that the methods haveequivalent accuracy. CONCLUSION: Siemens DBT demonstrates equivalent diagnostic accuracy according to ROCcurve analysis when used in place of SMVs in screen-detected soft-tissue mammographicabnormalities.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)95.e9-95e15
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Radiology
Volume72
Issue number1
Early online date10 Oct 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2017

Fingerprint

Mammography
Breast
Equipment and Supplies
ROC Curve
Area Under Curve
Reading
Population

Cite this

Whelehan, P. ; Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H. ; Vinnicombe, S. J. ; Hacker, A. ; Jaensch, A. ; Hapca, A. ; Gray, R. ; Jenkin, M. ; Lowry, K. ; Oeppen, R. ; Reilly, M. ; Stahnke, M. ; Evans, A. / Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities – a multi-reader study. In: Clinical Radiology. 2017 ; Vol. 72, No. 1. pp. 95.e9-95e15.
@article{3ccc03edbd8643d89c60535db6375063,
title = "Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities – a multi-reader study",
abstract = "AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of standard screening images plus single-viewdigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), using Siemens DBT equipment, with standard screeningimages plus supplementary mammographic views in non-calcific, screen-detected mammographicabnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were unselected women aged 50e69 years recalledwithin a population-based European breast screening programme for assessment of soft-tissuemammographic abnormalities. Supplementary mammographic views (SMVs) and DBT wereperformed in all cases. A range of equipment was used for screening and supplementarymammography, but all DBT examinations were performed using the Siemens MammomatInspiration. A retrospective multi-reader study including 238 cases for whom either histologyor at least 2 years’ follow-up was available was performed with eight suitably accredited UKbreast screening personnel reading all cases under both conditions, with temporal separation.Readers were blinded to case outcomes and findings from other examinations. Diagnosticaccuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was compared betweenscreening plus SMV images and screening plus DBT images. The study was powered to detect a3{\%} inferiority margin in diagnostic accuracy between methods. RESULTS: The final sample with complete data available for analysis included 195 benigncases (1,560 reads) and 35 malignant cases (280 reads). The DBT method yielded a slightly higher area under the curve (AUC) value than the SMV method (0.870 versus 0.857), but thedifference was not statistically significant (p¼0.4890), indicating that the methods haveequivalent accuracy. CONCLUSION: Siemens DBT demonstrates equivalent diagnostic accuracy according to ROCcurve analysis when used in place of SMVs in screen-detected soft-tissue mammographicabnormalities.",
author = "P. Whelehan and Heywang-K{\"o}brunner, {S. H.} and Vinnicombe, {S. J.} and A. Hacker and A. Jaensch and A. Hapca and R. Gray and M. Jenkin and K. Lowry and R. Oeppen and M. Reilly and M. Stahnke and A. Evans",
note = "This study was funded by Siemens Healthcare Ltd. The funder had no input into the study design, analysis, or reporting.",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011",
language = "English",
volume = "72",
pages = "95.e9--95e15",
journal = "Clinical Radiology",
issn = "0009-9260",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

Whelehan, P, Heywang-Köbrunner, SH, Vinnicombe, SJ, Hacker, A, Jaensch, A, Hapca, A, Gray, R, Jenkin, M, Lowry, K, Oeppen, R, Reilly, M, Stahnke, M & Evans, A 2017, 'Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities – a multi-reader study', Clinical Radiology, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 95.e9-95e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011

Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities – a multi-reader study. / Whelehan, P. (Lead / Corresponding author); Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H.; Vinnicombe, S. J.; Hacker, A.; Jaensch, A.; Hapca, A.; Gray, R.; Jenkin, M.; Lowry, K.; Oeppen, R.; Reilly, M.; Stahnke, M.; Evans, A.

In: Clinical Radiology, Vol. 72, No. 1, 01.2017, p. 95.e9-95e15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities – a multi-reader study

AU - Whelehan, P.

AU - Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H.

AU - Vinnicombe, S. J.

AU - Hacker, A.

AU - Jaensch, A.

AU - Hapca, A.

AU - Gray, R.

AU - Jenkin, M.

AU - Lowry, K.

AU - Oeppen, R.

AU - Reilly, M.

AU - Stahnke, M.

AU - Evans, A.

N1 - This study was funded by Siemens Healthcare Ltd. The funder had no input into the study design, analysis, or reporting.

PY - 2017/1

Y1 - 2017/1

N2 - AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of standard screening images plus single-viewdigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), using Siemens DBT equipment, with standard screeningimages plus supplementary mammographic views in non-calcific, screen-detected mammographicabnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were unselected women aged 50e69 years recalledwithin a population-based European breast screening programme for assessment of soft-tissuemammographic abnormalities. Supplementary mammographic views (SMVs) and DBT wereperformed in all cases. A range of equipment was used for screening and supplementarymammography, but all DBT examinations were performed using the Siemens MammomatInspiration. A retrospective multi-reader study including 238 cases for whom either histologyor at least 2 years’ follow-up was available was performed with eight suitably accredited UKbreast screening personnel reading all cases under both conditions, with temporal separation.Readers were blinded to case outcomes and findings from other examinations. Diagnosticaccuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was compared betweenscreening plus SMV images and screening plus DBT images. The study was powered to detect a3% inferiority margin in diagnostic accuracy between methods. RESULTS: The final sample with complete data available for analysis included 195 benigncases (1,560 reads) and 35 malignant cases (280 reads). The DBT method yielded a slightly higher area under the curve (AUC) value than the SMV method (0.870 versus 0.857), but thedifference was not statistically significant (p¼0.4890), indicating that the methods haveequivalent accuracy. CONCLUSION: Siemens DBT demonstrates equivalent diagnostic accuracy according to ROCcurve analysis when used in place of SMVs in screen-detected soft-tissue mammographicabnormalities.

AB - AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of standard screening images plus single-viewdigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), using Siemens DBT equipment, with standard screeningimages plus supplementary mammographic views in non-calcific, screen-detected mammographicabnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were unselected women aged 50e69 years recalledwithin a population-based European breast screening programme for assessment of soft-tissuemammographic abnormalities. Supplementary mammographic views (SMVs) and DBT wereperformed in all cases. A range of equipment was used for screening and supplementarymammography, but all DBT examinations were performed using the Siemens MammomatInspiration. A retrospective multi-reader study including 238 cases for whom either histologyor at least 2 years’ follow-up was available was performed with eight suitably accredited UKbreast screening personnel reading all cases under both conditions, with temporal separation.Readers were blinded to case outcomes and findings from other examinations. Diagnosticaccuracy using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was compared betweenscreening plus SMV images and screening plus DBT images. The study was powered to detect a3% inferiority margin in diagnostic accuracy between methods. RESULTS: The final sample with complete data available for analysis included 195 benigncases (1,560 reads) and 35 malignant cases (280 reads). The DBT method yielded a slightly higher area under the curve (AUC) value than the SMV method (0.870 versus 0.857), but thedifference was not statistically significant (p¼0.4890), indicating that the methods haveequivalent accuracy. CONCLUSION: Siemens DBT demonstrates equivalent diagnostic accuracy according to ROCcurve analysis when used in place of SMVs in screen-detected soft-tissue mammographicabnormalities.

U2 - 10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011

DO - 10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011

M3 - Article

C2 - 27737763

VL - 72

SP - 95.e9-95e15

JO - Clinical Radiology

JF - Clinical Radiology

SN - 0009-9260

IS - 1

ER -