Literature DB >> 22593120

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.

Per Skaane1, Randi Gullien, Hilde Bjørndal, Ellen B Eben, Ulrika Ekseth, Unni Haakenaasen, Gunnar Jahr, Ingvild Naess Jebsen, Mona Krager.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising new technology. Some experimental clinical studies have shown positive results, but the future role and indications of this new technique, whether in a screening or clinical setting, need to be evaluated.
PURPOSE: To compare digital mammography and DBT in a side-by-side feature analysis for cancer conspicuity, and to assess whether there is a potential additional value of DBT to standard state-of-the-art conventional imaging work-up with respect to detection of additional malignancies.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study had ethics committee approval. A total of 129 women underwent 2D digital mammography including supplementary cone-down and magnification views and breast ultrasonography if indicated, as well as digital breast tomosynthesis. The indication for conventional imaging in the clinical setting included a palpable lump in 30 (23%), abnormal mammographic screening findings in 54 (42%), and surveillance in 45 (35%) of the women. The women were examined according to present guidelines, including spot-magnification views, ultrasonography, and needle biopsies, if indicated. The DBT examinations were interpreted several weeks after the conventional imaging without knowledge of the conventional imaging findings. In a later session, three radiologists performed a side-by-side feature analysis for cancer conspicuity in a sample of 50 cases.
RESULTS: State-of-the-art conventional imaging resulted in needle biopsy of 45 breasts, of which 20 lesions were benign and a total of 25 cancers were diagnosed. The remaining 84 women were dismissed with a normal/definitely benign finding and without indication for needle biopsy. The subsequent DBT interpretation found suspicious findings in four of these 84 women, and these four women had to be called back for repeated work-up with knowledge of the tomosynthesis findings. These delayed work-ups resulted in two cancers (increasing the cancer detection by 8%) and two false-positive findings. The side-by-side feature analysis showed higher conspicuity scores for tomosynthesis compared to conventional 2D for cancers presenting as spiculated masses and distortions.
CONCLUSION: Tomosynthesis is a promising new technique. Our preliminary clinical experience shows that there is a potential for increasing the sensitivity using this new technique, especially for cancers manifesting as spiculated masses and distortions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22593120     DOI: 10.1258/ar.2012.120062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Radiol        ISSN: 0284-1851            Impact factor:   1.990


  38 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Interpretation of digital breast tomosynthesis: preliminary study on comparison with picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and dedicated workstation.

Authors:  Young Seon Kim; Jung Min Chang; Ann Yi; Sung Ui Shin; Myung Eun Lee; Won Hwa Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.

Authors:  Christiane M Hakim; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Amy E Kelly; Dilip D Shinde; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Ga Ram Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Ko Woon Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Characterize MRI-Detected Additional Lesions Unidentified at Targeted Ultrasound in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Giovanna Mariscotti; Nehmat Houssami; Manuela Durando; Pier Paolo Campanino; Elisa Regini; Alberto Fornari; Riccardo Bussone; Isabella Castellano; Anna Sapino; Paolo Fonio; Giovanni Gandini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study.

Authors:  Fabienne Thibault; Clarisse Dromain; Catherine Breucq; Corinne S Balleyguier; Caroline Malhaire; Luc Steyaert; Anne Tardivon; Enrica Baldan; Harir Drevon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI.

Authors:  Andrea Luparia; Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Stefano Ciatto; Davide Bosco; Pier Paolo Campanino; Isabella Castellano; Anna Sapino; Giovanni Gandini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  [Future of mammography-based imaging].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; T Wittenberg; T Michel; A Hartmann; M W Beckmann; C Rauh; S M Jud; B Brehm; M Meier-Meitinger; G Anton; M Uder; P A Fasching
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.