Objectives: Tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to be more sensitive than digital mammography, but it requires longer reading time. We retrospectively compared accuracy and reading times of a simplified protocol with 1-cm-thick slabs versus a standard protocol of slabs + 1-mm-spaced planes, both integrated with synthetic 2D. Methods: We randomly selected 894 DBTs (including 12 cancers) from the experimental arm of the RETomo trial. DBTs were read by two radiologists to estimate specificity. A second set of 24 cancers (8 also present in the first set) mixed within 276 negative DBTs was read by two radiologists. In total, 28 cancers with 64 readings were used to estimate sensitivity. Radiologists read with both protocols separated by a 3-month washout. Only women that were positive at the screening reading were assessed. Variance was estimated taking into account repeated measures. Results: Sensitivity was 82.8% (53/64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 67.2–92.2) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.2–95.8) with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. In the random screening setting, specificity was 97.9% (1727/1764, 95% CI 97.1–98.5) and 96.3% (95% CI 95.3–97.1), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was 0.68 and 0.54 with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. Median reading times with simplified protocol were 20% to 30% shorter than with standard protocol. Conclusions: A simplified protocol reduced reading time and false positives but may have a negative impact on sensitivity. Key Points: • The adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, more sensitive than mammography, could be limited by its potential effect on the radiologists’ workload, i.e., increased reading time and fatigue. • A DBT simplified protocol with slab only, compared to a standard protocol (slab plus planes) both integrated with synthetic 2D, reduced time and false positives but had a negative impact on sensitivity.

Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs / Iotti, V.; Giorgi Rossi, P.; Nitrosi, A.; Ravaioli, S.; Vacondio, R.; Campari, C.; Marchesi, V.; Ragazzi, M.; Bertolini, M.; Besutti, G.; Mori, C. A.; Pattacini, P.; Coriani, C.; Pescarolo, M.; Stefanelli, G.; Tondelli, G.; Beretti, F.; Caffarri, S.; Paterlini, L.; Canovi, L.; Colli, M.; Boschini, M.; Cavuto, S.; Braglia, L.. - In: EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0938-7994. - 29:7(2019), pp. 3802-3811. [10.1007/s00330-018-5978-x]

Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs

Ravaioli S.;Besutti G.;Tondelli G.;Beretti F.;Paterlini L.;Colli M.;Cavuto S.;
2019

Abstract

Objectives: Tomosynthesis (DBT) has proven to be more sensitive than digital mammography, but it requires longer reading time. We retrospectively compared accuracy and reading times of a simplified protocol with 1-cm-thick slabs versus a standard protocol of slabs + 1-mm-spaced planes, both integrated with synthetic 2D. Methods: We randomly selected 894 DBTs (including 12 cancers) from the experimental arm of the RETomo trial. DBTs were read by two radiologists to estimate specificity. A second set of 24 cancers (8 also present in the first set) mixed within 276 negative DBTs was read by two radiologists. In total, 28 cancers with 64 readings were used to estimate sensitivity. Radiologists read with both protocols separated by a 3-month washout. Only women that were positive at the screening reading were assessed. Variance was estimated taking into account repeated measures. Results: Sensitivity was 82.8% (53/64, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 67.2–92.2) and 90.6% (95% CI 80.2–95.8) with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. In the random screening setting, specificity was 97.9% (1727/1764, 95% CI 97.1–98.5) and 96.3% (95% CI 95.3–97.1), respectively. Inter-reader agreement was 0.68 and 0.54 with simplified and standard protocols, respectively. Median reading times with simplified protocol were 20% to 30% shorter than with standard protocol. Conclusions: A simplified protocol reduced reading time and false positives but may have a negative impact on sensitivity. Key Points: • The adoption of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in screening, more sensitive than mammography, could be limited by its potential effect on the radiologists’ workload, i.e., increased reading time and fatigue. • A DBT simplified protocol with slab only, compared to a standard protocol (slab plus planes) both integrated with synthetic 2D, reduced time and false positives but had a negative impact on sensitivity.
29
7
3802
3811
Comparing two visualization protocols for tomosynthesis in screening: specificity and sensitivity of slabs versus planes plus slabs / Iotti, V.; Giorgi Rossi, P.; Nitrosi, A.; Ravaioli, S.; Vacondio, R.; Campari, C.; Marchesi, V.; Ragazzi, M.; Bertolini, M.; Besutti, G.; Mori, C. A.; Pattacini, P.; Coriani, C.; Pescarolo, M.; Stefanelli, G.; Tondelli, G.; Beretti, F.; Caffarri, S.; Paterlini, L.; Canovi, L.; Colli, M.; Boschini, M.; Cavuto, S.; Braglia, L.. - In: EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0938-7994. - 29:7(2019), pp. 3802-3811. [10.1007/s00330-018-5978-x]
Iotti, V.; Giorgi Rossi, P.; Nitrosi, A.; Ravaioli, S.; Vacondio, R.; Campari, C.; Marchesi, V.; Ragazzi, M.; Bertolini, M.; Besutti, G.; Mori, C. A.; Pattacini, P.; Coriani, C.; Pescarolo, M.; Stefanelli, G.; Tondelli, G.; Beretti, F.; Caffarri, S.; Paterlini, L.; Canovi, L.; Colli, M.; Boschini, M.; Cavuto, S.; Braglia, L.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Iotti2019_Article_ComparingTwoVisualizationProto.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione dell'editore (versione pubblicata)
Dimensione 1.45 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.45 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11380/1281556
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact