Literature DB >> 25100302

The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography.

J C Morel1, A Iqbal2, R K Wasan1, C Peacock1, D R Evans1, R Rahim1, J Goligher1, M J Michell1.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with coned compression magnification mammography (CCMM).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study design included two reading sessions completed by seven experienced radiologists. In the first session, all readers read bilateral standard two-view mammograms and a CCMM view of the lesion before giving a combined score for assessment. In the second session, readers read bilateral standard two-view mammograms plus one-view DBT. The two reading sessions of the experiment were separated by at least 2 weeks to reduce the chance of reader memory of the images read in the previous session from influencing the performance in the subsequent session.
RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-four lesions were assessed and receiver-operative characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the difference between the two modes. For standard two-view mammography plus CCMM, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.91] and for standard two-view mammography plus DBT the AUC was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95). The difference between the AUCs was 0.06 with p-value of 0.0014.
CONCLUSION: Two-view mammography with one-view DBT showed significantly improved accuracy compared to two-view mammography and CCMM in the assessment of mammographic abnormalities. These results show that DBT can be used effectively in the further evaluation of mammographic abnormalities found at screening and in symptomatic diagnostic practice.
Copyright © 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25100302     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  11 in total

1.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis].

Authors:  H Preibsch; K C Siegmann-Luz
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  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

3.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

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

Review 4.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 5.  Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond.

Authors:  Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Werner Bader; Pascal Baltzer; Maria Bernathova; Michael Fuchsjäger; Michael Golatta; Thomas H Helbich; Karin Hellerhoff; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Claudia Kurtz; Alexander Mundinger; Katja C Siegmann-Luz; Per Skaane; Chistine Solbach; Stefanie Weigel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Digital breast tomosynthesis at screening assessment: are two views always necessary?

Authors:  Rabea Haq; Yit Y Lim; Anthony J Maxwell; Emma Hurley; Ursula Beetles; Sara Bundred; Mary Wilson; Susan Astley; Fiona J Gilbert
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Additional Views for the Assessment of Screen-Detected Abnormalities - a First Analysis.

Authors:  Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jaensch; Astrid Hacker; Sabina Wulz-Horber; Thomas Mertelmeier; Dieter Hölzel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions.

Authors:  Eleanor J Cornford; Anne E Turnbull; Jonathan J James; Rachel Tsang; Tayeba Akram; Helen C Burrell; Lisa J Hamilton; Sarah L Tennant; Mark J Bagnall; Shama Puri; Graham R Ball; Yan Chen; Vivienne Jones
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography.

Authors:  Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri; Craig K Abbey; Javier E López; Andrew M Hernandez; Peymon Gazi; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa).

Authors:  Daniela Bernardi; Paolo Belli; Eva Benelli; Beniamino Brancato; Lauro Bucchi; Massimo Calabrese; Luca A Carbonaro; Francesca Caumo; Beatrice Cavallo-Marincola; Paola Clauser; Chiara Fedato; Alfonso Frigerio; Vania Galli; Livia Giordano; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Paola Golinelli; Doralba Morrone; Giovanna Mariscotti; Laura Martincich; Stefania Montemezzi; Carlo Naldoni; Adriana Paduos; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Fiammetta Querci; Antonio Rizzo; Gianni Saguatti; Alberto Tagliafico; Rubina M Trimboli; Marco Zappa; Chiara Zuiani; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.