Evidence Hub

Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as Replacement of Full-Field Digital Mammography Using an In Silico Imaging Trial

Aldo G. Badano, Christian G. Graff, Andreu Badal, Diksha Sharma, Rongping Zeng, F. W. Samuelson, Stephen J. Glick, Kyle J. Myers

JAMA Network Open, 2018

2,986 participants · 231 citations

Abstract

Importance: Expensive and lengthy clinical trials can delay regulatory evaluation of innovative technologies, affecting patient access to high-quality medical products. Simulation is increasingly being used in product development but rarely in regulatory applications. Objectives: To conduct a computer-simulated imaging trial evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a replacement for digital mammography (DM) and to compare the results with a comparative clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The simulated Virtual Imaging Clinical Trial for Regulatory Evaluation (VICTRE) trial was designed to replicate a clinical trial that used human patients and radiologists. Images obtained with in silico versions of DM and DBT systems via fast Monte Carlo x-ray transport were interpreted by a computational reader detecting the presence of lesions. A total of 2986 synthetic image-based virtual patients with breast sizes and radiographic densities representative of a screening population and compressed thicknesses from 3.5 to 6 cm were generated using an analytic approach in which anatomical structures are randomly created within a predefined breast volume and compressed in the craniocaudal orientation. A positive cohort contained a digitally inserted microcalcification cluster or spiculated mass. Main Outcomes and Measures: The trial end point was the difference in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between modalities for lesion detection. The trial…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,986 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free