Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To compare stereoscopic digital mammography (DM) with standard DM for the rate of patient recall and the detection of cancer in a screening population at elevated risk for breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting in September 2004 and ending in December 2007, this prospective HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved screening trial, with written informed consent, recruited female patients at elevated risk for breast cancer (eg, personal history of breast cancer or breast cancer in a close relative). A total of 1298 examinations from 779 patients (mean age, 58.6 years; range, 32-91 years) comprised the analyzable data set. A paired study design was used, with each enrolled patient serving as her own control. Patients underwent both DM and stereoscopic DM examinations in a single visit, findings of which were interpreted independently by two experienced radiologists, each using a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment (BI-RADS category 0, 1, or 2). All patients determined to have one or more findings with either or both modalities were recalled for standard diagnostic evaluation. The results of 1-year follow-up or biopsy were used to determine case truth. RESULTS: Compared with DM, stereoscopic DM showed significantly higher specificity (91.2% [1167 of 1279] vs 87.8% [1123 of 1279]; P = .0024) and accuracy (90.9% [1180 of 1298] vs 87.4% [1135 of 1298]; P = .0023) for detection of cancer. Sensitivity for detection of cancer was not significantly different for stereoscopic DM (68.4% [13 of 19]) compared with DM (63.2% [12 of 19], P .99). The recall rate for stereoscopic DM was 9.6% (125 of 1298) and that for DM was 12.9% (168 of 1298) (P = .0018). CONCLUSION: Compared with DM, stereoscopic DM significantly improved specificity for detection of cancer, while maintaining comparable sensitivity. The recall rate was significantly reduced with stereoscopic DM compared with DM. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120382/-/DC1.

Multimodality diagnosis of liver tumors: feature analysis with CT, liver-specific and contrast-enhanced MR, and a computer model.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to measure and to clarify the diagnostic contributions of image-based features in differentiating benign from malignant and hepatocyte-containing from non-hepatocyte-containing liver lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six experienced abdominal radiologists each read images from 146 cases (including a contrast material-enhanced computed tomographic [CT] scan and contrast-enhanced and unenhanced magnetic resonance [MR] images) following a checklist-questionnaire requiring them to rate quantitatively each of as many as 131 image features and then reported on each of the two differentiations. The diagnostic value of each feature was assessed, and linear discriminant analysis was used to develop statistical prediction rules (SPRs) for merging feature data into computerized "second opinions." For the two differentiations, accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [Az]) was then determined for the radiologists' readings by themselves and for each of three SPRs. RESULTS: Thirty-seven candidate features had diagnostic value for each of the two differentiations (a slightly different feature set for each). Radiologists' performance at both differentiations was excellent (Az = 0.929 [benign vs malignant] and 0.926 [hepatocyte-containing vs non-hepatocyte-containing]). Performance of the SPR that operated on the features from all modalities together was better than that of radiologists (Az = 0.936 [benign vs malignant] and 0.951 [hepatocyte-containing vs non-hepatocyte-containing]), but this difference was of marginal statistical significance (P = .11). Contrast-enhanced MR imaging and contrast-enhanced CT each made significant adjunctive contributions to accuracy compared with unenhanced MR imaging alone. CONCLUSION: Many CT- and MR imaging-based features have diagnostic value in differentiating benign from malignant and hepatocyte-containing from non-hepatocyte-containing liver lesions. Radiologists could also benefit from the fully informed SPR's "second opinions."