Performance of synthetic mammography in the detection of architectural distortion: a comparison with conventional 2D digital mammography

Huntrakul L; Udomphon S; Kongmebhol P; Rujiwetpongstorn J; Mutarak M

Authors

Huntrakul L Radiology department, Faculty of medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Udomphon S Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Kongmebhol P Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Rujiwetpongstorn J Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand
Mutarak M Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Keywords:

architectural distortion, synthetic 2D mammography, conventional 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis

Abstract

Objectives To compare the performance of synthetic mammography (SM) and conventional 2D digital mammography (DM) in the detection of architectural distortion (AD).

Methods A retrospective review was conducted by three breast imaging radiologists for DM and SM of 33 patients (16 distorted and 17 non-distorted) to identify the presence or absence of and the location of AD. The results were checked for consensus with the standard digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) reference. STATA version 16.0 was used to analyze the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each method. Logistic regression was used to calculate the Area Under the Curve (AUC) and the Chi-squared test was used to compare the AUC between the two methods.

Results The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of detection of AD with DM versus SM were 62.5% vs 62.5%, 70.6% vs 88.2%, 66.7% vs 83.3%, 66.7% vs 71.4% and 66.7% vs 75.8%, respectively. The AUC (95% CI) of the SM technique for detection of AD was higher than the DM technique: 0.75 (0.61-0.90) compared with 0.67 (0.50-0.83) (p = 0.32).

Conclusion SM provides equal and potentially better diagnostic performance than DM in the detection of AD.

References

Institute of M, National Research Council Committee on New Approaches to Early D, Diagnosis of Breast C. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. In: Joy JE, Penhoet EE, Petitti DB, editors. Saving Women’s Lives: Strategies for Improving Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) National Academy of Sciences.; 2005.

Mohindra N, Neyaz Z, Agrawal V, Agarwal G, Mishra P. Impact of Addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Digital Mammography in Lesion Characterization in Breast Cancer Patients. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2018;8:33-7.

Durand MA, Wang S, Hooley RJ, Raghu M, Philpotts LE. Tomosynthesis-detected Architectural Distortion: Management Algorithm with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics. 2016;36:311-21.

D’Orsi CJ SE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.

Nguyen T, Levy G, Poncelet E, Le Thanh T, Prolongeau JF, Phalippou J, et al. Overview of digital breast tomosynthesis: Clinical cases, benefits and disadvantages. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2015;96:843-59.

Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:141-50.

Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, et al. Comparison of Two-dimensional Synthesized Mammograms versus Original Digital Mammograms Alone and in Combination with Tomosynthesis Images. Radiology. 2014;271:664-71.

Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF, Copit DS, Friedewald SM, Plecha DM, et al. Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts. JAMA. 2016;315:1784-6.

Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014;311:2499-507.

McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:737-43.

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47-56.

Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV. Architectural Distortion on Mammography: Correlation With Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:1339-45.

Gaur S, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Architectural distortion of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W662-70.

Pinochet MA, Altamirano AV, Horvath E, Uchida M, Silva C, Darrás C. Architectural distortion of the breast: the best way to confront it. Rev Chil Radiol 2016. 2016;22:158-62.

Onega T, Smith M, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA, Geller BA, Kerlikowske K, et al. Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9:788-94.

Onega T, Anderson ML, Miglioretti DL, Buist DS, Geller B, Bogart A, et al. Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers. Acad Radiol. 2013;20:731-9.

Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA. Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions. Radiology. 2015;275:377-83.

Peppard HR, Nicholson BE, Rochman CM, Merchant JK, Mayo RC, 3rd, Harvey JA. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Clinical Applications. Radiographics. 2015;35:975-90.