OBJECTIVES: To compare DBT and FFDM in the classification of microcalcification clusters (MCs) using BI-RADS. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved study was undertaken in three centres. A total of 107 MCs evaluated with both DBT and FFDM were randomised for prospective reading by six experienced breast radiologists and classified using BI-RADS. RESULTS: The benign/malignant ratio of MC was 66/41. Of 11/107 discordant results, DBT classified MCs as R2 whereas FFDM classified them as R3 in 9 and R4 in 2. Three of these (3/107 = 2.8%) were malignant; 8 (7.5%) were nonmalignant and were correctly classified as R2 on DBT but incorrectly classified as R3 on FFDM. Estimated sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 100% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7% to 98.5%) for FFDM and 91.1% (95% CI: 78.8% to 97.5%) and 100% (95% CI: 94.8% to 100%) for DBT. Overall intra- and interobserver agreements were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61-0.84) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Most MCs are scored similarly on FFDM and DBT. Although a minority (11/107) of MCs are classified differently on FFDM (benign MC classified as R3) and DBT (malignant MC classified as R2), this may have clinical relevance. KEY POINTS: • The BI-RADS classification of MC differs for FFDM and DBT in 11/107 cases • DBT assigned lower BI-RADS classes compared to FFDM in 11 clusters • In 4/107 DBT may have missed some malignant and high-risk lesions • In 7/107 the 'underclassification' on DBT was correct, potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies • DBT may miss a small proportion of malignant lesions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare DBT and FFDM in the classification of microcalcification clusters (MCs) using BI-RADS. METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved study was undertaken in three centres. A total of 107 MCs evaluated with both DBT and FFDM were randomised for prospective reading by six experienced breast radiologists and classified using BI-RADS. RESULTS: The benign/malignant ratio of MC was 66/41. Of 11/107 discordant results, DBT classified MCs as R2 whereas FFDM classified them as R3 in 9 and R4 in 2. Three of these (3/107 = 2.8%) were malignant; 8 (7.5%) were nonmalignant and were correctly classified as R2 on DBT but incorrectly classified as R3 on FFDM. Estimated sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 100% (95% CI: 91% to 100%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7% to 98.5%) for FFDM and 91.1% (95% CI: 78.8% to 97.5%) and 100% (95% CI: 94.8% to 100%) for DBT. Overall intra- and interobserver agreements were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.61-0.84) and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Most MCs are scored similarly on FFDM and DBT. Although a minority (11/107) of MCs are classified differently on FFDM (benign MC classified as R3) and DBT (malignant MC classified as R2), this may have clinical relevance. KEY POINTS: • The BI-RADS classification of MC differs for FFDM and DBT in 11/107 cases • DBT assigned lower BI-RADS classes compared to FFDM in 11 clusters • In 4/107 DBT may have missed some malignant and high-risk lesions • In 7/107 the 'underclassification' on DBT was correct, potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies • DBT may miss a small proportion of malignant lesions.
Authors: Elizabeth A Rafferty; Jeong Mi Park; Liane E Philpotts; Steven P Poplack; Jules H Sumkin; Elkan F Halpern; Loren T Niklason Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Lee Spangler; Margarita L Zuley; Jules H Sumkin; Gordan Abrams; Marie A Ganott; Christiane Hakim; Ronald Perrin; Denise M Chough; Ratan Shah; David Gur Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Colleen H Neal; Yao Lu; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Chuan Zhou Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ji Soo Choi; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Soo Yeon Hahn; Jung Hee Shin; Min Jung Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Deborah O Jeffries; Katherine A Klein; Colleen H Neal; Mitra Noroozian; Chintana Paramagul; Marilyn A Roubidoux Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 5.333