A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis

AIM: To measure the change in diagnostic accuracy of conventional film-screen mammography and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women recalled for assessment following routine screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ethics approval for the study was granted. Women recalled for assessment following routine screening with screen-film mammography were invited to participate. Participants underwent bilateral, two-view FFDM and two-view DBT. Readers scored each lesion separately for probability of malignancy on screen-film mammography, FFDM, and then DBT. The scores were compared with the presence or absence of malignancy based on the final histopathology outcome. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty-eight women participated (93.2% recruitment rate). Following assessment 204 (26.8%) were diagnosed as malignant (147 invasive and 57 in-situ tumours), 286(37.68%) as benign, and 269(35.4%) as normal. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by using receiving operating characteristic (ROC) and measurement of area under the curve (AUC). The AUC values demonstrated a significant (p = 0.0001) improvement in the diagnostic accuracy with the addition of DBTcombined with FFDM and film-screen mammography (AUC = 0.9671) when compared to FFDM plus film-screen mammography (AUC = 0.8949) and film-screen mammography alone (AUC = 0.7882). The effect was significantly greater for soft-tissue lesions [AUC was 0.9905 with the addition of DBT and AUC was 0.9201 for FFDM with film-screen mammography combined (p = 0.0001)] compared to microcalcification [with the addition of DBT (AUC = 0.7920) and for FFDM with film-screen mammography combined (AUC = 0.7843; p = 0.3182)]. CONCLUSION: The addition of DBT increases the accuracy of mammography compared to FFDM and film-screen mammography combined and film-screen mammography alone in the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue mammographic abnormalities. (C) 2012 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.