Literature DB >> 19657655

Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results.

Hendrik J Teertstra1, Claudette E Loo, Maurice A A J van den Bosch, Harm van Tinteren, Emiel J T Rutgers, Sara H Muller, Kenneth G A Gilhuijs.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the potential value of tomosynthesis in women with an abnormal screening mammogram or with clinical symptoms. Mammography and tomosynthesis investigations of 513 woman with an abnormal screening mammogram or with clinical symptoms were prospectively classified according to the ACR BI-RADS criteria. Sensitivity and specificity of both techniques for the detection of cancer were calculated. In 112 newly detected cancers, tomosynthesis and mammography were each false-negative in 8 cases (7%). In the false-negative mammography cases, the tumor was detected with ultrasound (n = 4), MRI (n = 2), by recall after breast tomosynthesis interpretation (n = 1), and after prophylactic mastectomy (n = 1). Combining the results of mammography and tomosynthesis detected 109 cancers. Therefore in three patients, both mammography and tomosynthesis missed the carcinoma. The sensitivity of both techniques for the detection of breast cancer was 92.9%, and the specificity of mammography and tomosynthesis was 86.1 and 84.4%, respectively. Tomosynthesis can be used as an additional technique to mammography in patients referred with an abnormal screening mammogram or with clinical symptoms. Additional lesions detected by tomosynthesis, however, are also likely to be detected by other techniques used in the clinical work-up of these patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19657655     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1523-2

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


  29 in total

1.  Glandular breast dose for monoenergetic and high-energy X-ray beams: Monte Carlo assessment.

Authors:  J M Boone
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Jennifer H Menell
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  Initial clinical experience with contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Sara C Chen; Ann-Katherine Carton; Michael Albert; Emily F Conant; Mitchell D Schnall; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 4.  Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Loren Niklason
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.800

Review 5.  Digital mammography: clinical implementation and clinical trials.

Authors:  Carl J D'Orsi; Mary S Newell
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 0.800

6.  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

Review 7.  How reliable is modern breast imaging in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in the symptomatic population?

Authors:  H A Moss; P D Britton; C D Flower; A H Freeman; D J Lomas; R M Warren
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 2.350

8.  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

9.  The significance of circumscribed malignant mammographic masses in the surveillance of BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J H C L Hendriks; A P E Besnard; W Koops; F A Pameijer; W Prevoo; C E Loo; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  S R C Benson; J Blue; K Judd; J E Harman
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  57 in total

1.  Image quality of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis: effects of projection-view distributions.

Authors:  Yao Lu; Heang-Ping Chan; Jun Wei; Mitch Goodsitt; Paul L Carson; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Andrea Schmitz; Jeffrey W Eberhard; Bernhard E H Claus
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

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

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

4.  Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; M P Lux; E Wenkel; S Schwab; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.915

5.  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

6.  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

7.  X-ray phase-contrast imaging of the breast--advances towards clinical implementation.

Authors:  S D Auweter; J Herzen; M Willner; S Grandl; K Scherer; F Bamberg; M F Reiser; F Pfeiffer; K Hellerhoff
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology, Specimen Radiography System (SRS) and Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Can Optimise Surgical Therapy?

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; B Brehm; M Hammon; M Saake; P Dankerl; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.915

9.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography based on photon-counting detectors: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Breast MRI, digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis: comparison of three methods for early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Dragana Roganovic; Dragana Djilas; Sasa Vujnovic; Dag Pavic; Dragan Stojanov
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 3.363

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.