SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

WFRF:(Wallis Matthew G.)
 

Search: WFRF:(Wallis Matthew G.) > Two-View and Single...

Two-View and Single-View Tomosynthesis versus Full-Field Digital Mammography : High-Resolution X-Ray Imaging Observer Study

Wallis, Matthew G. (author)
Moa, Elin (author)
Zanca, Federica (author)
show more...
Leifland, Karin (author)
Danielsson, Mats (author)
KTH,Medicinsk bildfysik
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), 2012
2012
English.
In: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 0033-8419 .- 1527-1315. ; 262:3, s. 788-796
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • Purpose: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) full-field digital mammography with that of two-view (mediolateral and craniocaudal) and single-view (mediolateral oblique) tomosynthesis in an observer study involving two institutions. Materials and Methods: Ethical committee approval was obtained. All participating women gave informed consent. Two hundred twenty women (mean age, 56.3; range, 40-80 years) with breast density of 2-4 according to American College of Radiology criteria were recruited between November 2008 and September 2009 and underwent standard treatment plus tomosynthesis with a prototype photon-counting machine. After exclusion criteria were met, this resulted in a final test set of 130 women. Ten accredited readers classified the 130 cases (40 cancers, 24 benign lesions, and 66 normal images) using 2D mammography and two-view tomosynthesis. Another 10 readers reviewed the same cases using 2D mammography but single-view tomosynthesis. The multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) method was applied. The significance of the observed difference in accuracy between 2D mammography and tomosynthesis was calculated. Results: For diagnostic accuracy, 2D mammography performed significantly worse than two-view tomosynthesis (average area under ROC curve [AUC] = 0.772 for 2D, AUC = 0.851 for tomosynthesis, P = .021). Significant differences were found for both masses and microcalcification (P = .037 and .049). The difference in AUC between the two modalities of 20.110 was significant (P = .03) only for the five readers with the least experience (<10 years of reading); with AUC of 20.047 for the five readers with 10 years or more experience (P = .25). No significant difference (P = .79) in reader performance was seen when 2D mammography (average AUC = 0.774) was compared with single-view tomosynthesis (average AUC = 0.775). Conclusion: Two-view tomosynthesis outperforms 2D mammography but only for readers with the least experience. The benefits were seen for both masses and microcalcification. No differences in classification accuracy was seen between and 2D mammography and single-view tomosynthesis.

Subject headings

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Klinisk medicin -- Radiologi och bildbehandling (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Clinical Medicine -- Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging (hsv//eng)

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)
art (subject category)

Find in a library

  • Radiology (Search for host publication in LIBRIS)

To the university's database

Find more in SwePub

By the author/editor
Wallis, Matthew ...
Moa, Elin
Zanca, Federica
Leifland, Karin
Danielsson, Mats
About the subject
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL AND HEAL ...
and Clinical Medicin ...
and Radiology Nuclea ...
Articles in the publication
Radiology
By the university
Royal Institute of Technology

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view