Literature DB >> 18641998

Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.

Ingvar Andersson1, Debra M Ikeda, Sophia Zackrisson, Mark Ruschin, Tony Svahn, Pontus Timberg, Anders Tingberg.   

Abstract

The main purpose was to compare breast cancer visibility in one-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) to cancer visibility in one- or two-view digital mammography (DM). Thirty-six patients were selected on the basis of subtle signs of breast cancer on DM. One-view BT was performed with the same compression angle as the DM image in which the finding was least/not visible. On BT, 25 projections images were acquired over an angular range of 50 degrees, with double the dose of one-view DM. Two expert breast imagers classified one- and two-view DM, and BT findings for cancer visibility and BIRADS cancer probability in a non-blinded consensus study. Forty breast cancers were found in 37 breasts. The cancers were rated more visible on BT compared to one-view and two-view DM in 22 and 11 cases, respectively, (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Comparing one-view DM to one-view BT, 21 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). Comparing two-view DM to one-view BT, 12 patients were upgraded on BIRADS classification (p < 0.01). The results indicate that the cancer visibility on BT is superior to DM, which suggests that BT may have a higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18641998     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  20 in total

1.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds.

Authors:  F O Bochud; J F Valley; F R Verdun; C Hessler; P Schnyder
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection.

Authors:  R L Birdwell; D M Ikeda; K F O'Shaughnessy; E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation.

Authors:  M Båth; L G Månsson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2006-07-19       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study.

Authors:  Walter F Good; Gordon S Abrams; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging.

Authors:  L T Niklason; B T Christian; L E Niklason; D B Kopans; D E Castleberry; B H Opsahl-Ong; C E Landberg; P J Slanetz; A A Giardino; R Moore; D Albagli; M C DeJule; P F Fitzgerald; D F Fobare; B W Giambattista; R F Kwasnick; J Liu; S J Lubowski; G E Possin; J F Richotte; C Y Wei; R F Wirth
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise.

Authors:  A E Burgess; F L Jacobson; P F Judy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Tor D Tosteson; Christine A Kogel; Helene M Nagy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  79 in total

1.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications on planar projection images.

Authors:  Ravi K Samala; Heang-Ping Chan; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Jun Wei; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  A software-based x-ray scatter correction method for breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: a 3D approach.

Authors:  Berkman Sahiner; Heang-Ping Chan; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Mark A Helvie; Jun Wei; Chuan Zhou; Yao Lu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

Authors:  Mitra Noroozian; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sahand Rahnama-Moghadam; Katherine A Klein; Deborah O Jeffries; Renee W Pinsky; Heang-Ping Chan; Paul L Carson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis : technical principles, current clinical relevance and future perspectives].

Authors:  K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

6.  A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images.

Authors:  Sara Vecchio; Achille Albanese; Paolo Vignoli; Angelo Taibi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana P Lourenco; Grayson L Baird; Robert C Ward; A Stanley Maynard; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Junqiang Lei; Pin Yang; Li Zhang; Yinzhong Wang; Kehu Yang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Transfer Learning From Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Diagnosis: A Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Kayla Mendel; Hui Li; Deepa Sheth; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.