OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to subjectively compare additional mammographic views to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the characterizing of known masses, architectural distortions, or asymmetries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four experienced radiologists serially reviewed the imaging studies of 25 women with known masses, including full-field digital mammography (FFDM), additional views, and DBT. After review of the examinations, radiologists rated their relative preference in terms of classifying the finding in question when aided by the additional views versus aided by DBT, their combined diagnostic BI-RADS rating of the finding when both examinations were available, and whether or not they felt comfortable eliminating ultrasound in the specific cases being evaluated as a result of the DBT. RESULTS: FFDM and DBT (combined) were perceived to be better for diagnosis in 50% (50/100) of the ratings (25 cases x four readers = 100 ratings) compared with FFDM and additional diagnostic views. Over all readers, 92% of the ratings for verified cancer cases and 50% of the ratings for high-risk cases were rated as BI-RADS 4 or 5. In 12% (12/100) of the ratings, radiologists indicated that the availability of DBT would have eliminated the need for ultrasound as a part of the diagnostic process. CONCLUSION: DBT may be an alternative to obtaining additional mammographic views in most but not all cases of patients with a lesion that is not solely calcifications. In a fraction of cases, the use of DBT may eliminate the need for ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to subjectively compare additional mammographic views to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the characterizing of known masses, architectural distortions, or asymmetries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four experienced radiologists serially reviewed the imaging studies of 25 women with known masses, including full-field digital mammography (FFDM), additional views, and DBT. After review of the examinations, radiologists rated their relative preference in terms of classifying the finding in question when aided by the additional views versus aided by DBT, their combined diagnostic BI-RADS rating of the finding when both examinations were available, and whether or not they felt comfortable eliminating ultrasound in the specific cases being evaluated as a result of the DBT. RESULTS:FFDM and DBT (combined) were perceived to be better for diagnosis in 50% (50/100) of the ratings (25 cases x four readers = 100 ratings) compared with FFDM and additional diagnostic views. Over all readers, 92% of the ratings for verified cancer cases and 50% of the ratings for high-risk cases were rated as BI-RADS 4 or 5. In 12% (12/100) of the ratings, radiologists indicated that the availability of DBT would have eliminated the need for ultrasound as a part of the diagnostic process. CONCLUSION: DBT may be an alternative to obtaining additional mammographic views in most but not all cases of patients with a lesion that is not solely calcifications. In a fraction of cases, the use of DBT may eliminate the need for ultrasound.
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
Authors: S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Amy E Kelly; Victor J Catullo; Grace Y Rathfon; Amy H Lu; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 11.105