Digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography: diagnostic performance and effect on recall rates versus digital mammography in category O

被引:0
|
作者
Emlik, Ganime Dilek [1 ]
Poyraz, Necdet [1 ]
Altunkeser, Aysegul [2 ]
机构
[1] Necmettin Erbakan Univ, Meram Fac Med, Dept Radiol, Konya, Turkey
[2] Konya Educ & Res Hosp, Dept Radiol, Konya, Turkey
关键词
Screening mammography; digital breast tomosynthesis; ultrasonography; diagnostic performance; recall rates; INITIAL-EXPERIENCE; DENSE BREASTS; CANCER; ULTRASOUND; WOMEN;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic performance and screening recall rates of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound (US) added to digital mammography (DM) in the category O. This study was approved by the local ethics committee and informed consent was obtained. The additional breast US and DBT performed 216 women categorized as BI-RADS category O according to screening DM between January 2014 and February 2015. A total of 22 women that previously underwent breast surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy were excluded. Finally 194 patients were enrolled in this study. The DM+DBT images and DM+DBT images with US images of patients were independently reviewed by three breast radiologists and than recategorized according to BI-RADS category. Among 194 lesions, 165 (85%) were benign and 29 (14.9%) were malign. DBT reduced recall rate by 70%. For DBT, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy were 97%, 82%, 48%, 99%, and 84%, whereas for US sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy were 93%, 79%, 47%, 98%, and 81%, respectively. AUC value was 0.89 and 0.86 for DBT and US. In conclusion, DBT reduced recall rates. DBT showed better diagnostic performance than breast US for category O. Reduction in RR was independent from breast parenchymal patterns.
引用
收藏
页码:10668 / 10675
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (DM) in a population clinically referred for breast imaging - a retrospective cohort study
    Noguchi, Naomi
    Boroumand, Farzaneh
    Bell, Katy
    Pooley, Margaret
    Zeng, Aileen
    Arnold, Lauren
    Teixeira-Pinto, Armando
    Houssami, Nehmat
    CANCER TREATMENT AND RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2024, 42
  • [32] Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial
    Pattacini, Pierpaolo
    Nitrosi, Andrea
    Rossi, Paolo Giorgi
    Iotti, Valentina
    Ginocchi, Vladimiro
    Ravaioli, Sara
    Vacondio, Rita
    Braglia, Luca
    Cavuto, Silvio
    Campari, Cinzia
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (02) : 375 - 385
  • [33] Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis
    Ohashi, Ryoko
    Nagao, Michinobu
    Nakamura, Izumi
    Okamoto, Takahiro
    Sakai, Shuji
    BREAST CANCER, 2018, 25 (05) : 590 - 596
  • [34] Local Tumor Staging of Breast Cancer: Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis
    Fontaine, Marion
    Tourasse, Christophe
    Pages, Emmanuelle
    Laurent, Nicolas
    Laffargue, Guillaume
    Millet, Ingrid
    Molinari, Nicolas
    Taourel, Patrice
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 291 (03) : 594 - 603
  • [35] Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography
    Fornvik, Daniel
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    Ljungberg, Otto
    Svahn, Tony
    Timberg, Pontus
    Tingberg, Anders
    Andersson, Ingvar
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2010, 51 (03) : 240 - 247
  • [36] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography (FFDM) in younger symptomatic women
    Whelehan, Patsy
    Ali, Kulsam
    Vinnicombe, Sarah
    Ball, Graham
    Cox, Julie
    Farry, Paul
    Jenkin, Maggie
    Kapsoulis, Dimitrios
    Lowry, Keith
    McIntosh, Stuart
    Nutt, Rachel
    Oeppen, Rachel
    Reilly, Michael
    Stahnke, Michaela
    Steel, Jim
    Sim, Yee Ting
    Warwick, Violet
    Wilkinson, Louise
    Evans, Andrew
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 20
  • [37] Clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: Preliminary results
    Gennaro, Gisella
    Baldan, Enrica
    Bezzon, Elisabetta
    La Grassa, Manuela
    Pescarini, Luigi
    di Maggio, Cosimo
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2008, 5116 : 477 - 482
  • [38] A comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2D synthetic mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis in 2500 patients
    Holt, S. D.
    Sharaiha, Y. M.
    Moalla, A.
    Williams, H. R.
    Thomas, D.
    Huws, A. M.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76
  • [39] Impact of breast density on diagnostic accuracy in digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: results from a European screening trial
    Olinder, Jakob
    Johnson, Kristin
    Akesson, Anna
    Fornvik, Daniel
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 25 (01)
  • [40] Comparison of Call-Back Rates between Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Scott, Anthony M.
    Lashley, Madison G.
    Drury, Nicholas B.
    Dale, Paul S.
    AMERICAN SURGEON, 2019, 85 (08) : 855 - 857