Literature DB >> 25182628

Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density.

Sung Ui Shin1, Jung Min Chang, Min Sun Bae, Su Hyun Lee, Nariya Cho, Mirinae Seo, Won Hwa Kim, Woo Kyung Moon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the average glandular dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus cranio-caudal (CC) digital mammography (DM) with two-view DM, and to evaluate the correlation of AGD with breast thickness and density.
METHODS: MLO and CC DM and DBT images of both breasts were obtained in 149 subjects. AGDs of DBT and DM per exposure were recorded, and their correlation with breast thickness and density were evaluated. Paired data of MLO DBT plus CC DM and two-view DM were reviewed for presence of malignancy in a jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) method.
RESULTS: The AGDs of both DBT and DM, and differences in AGD between DBT and DM (ΔAGD), were correlated with breast thickness and density. The average JAFROC figure of merit (FOM) was significantly higher on the combined technique than two-view DM (P = 0.005). In dense breasts, the FOM and sensitivity of the combined technique was higher than that of two-view DM (P = 0.003) with small ΔAGD.
CONCLUSIONS: MLO DBT plus CC DM provided higher diagnostic performance than two-view DM in dense breasts with a small increase in AGD. KEY POINTS: • DBT has higher diagnostic performance and potential to overcome limitations of DM. • Dose differences (DBT-DM, ΔAGD) were inversely correlated with breast thickness and density. • Figure of merit of MLO-DBT/CC-DM was higher than that of two-view DM. • In dense breasts, MLO-DBT/CC-DM provides better diagnostic performance with a small AGD increase.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25182628     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3399-z

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


  34 in total

1.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study.

Authors:  Matthew G Wallis; Elin Moa; Federica Zanca; Karin Leifland; Mats Danielsson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

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

3.  The myth of the 50-50 breast.

Authors:  M J Yaffe; J M Boone; N Packard; O Alonzo-Proulx; S Y Huang; C L Peressotti; A Al-Mayah; K Brock
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Clinical digital breast tomosynthesis system: dosimetric characterization.

Authors:  Steve Si Jia Feng; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02-13       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Davide Astengo; Francesca Cavagnetto; Raffaella Rosasco; Giuseppe Rescinito; Francesco Monetti; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study.

Authors:  T Svahn; I Andersson; D Chakraborty; S Svensson; D Ikeda; D Förnvik; S Mattsson; A Tingberg; S Zackrisson
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 0.972

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.  Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort.

Authors:  Barbro Numan Hellquist; Stephen W Duffy; Shahin Abdsaleh; Lena Björneld; Pál Bordás; László Tabár; Bedrich Viták; Sophia Zackrisson; Lennarth Nyström; Håkan Jonsson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Mammographic density estimation: one-to-one comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using fully automated software.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Giulio Tagliafico; Davide Astengo; Francesca Cavagnetto; Raffaella Rosasco; Giuseppe Rescinito; Francesco Monetti; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-24       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  12 in total

1.  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

2.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis].

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

3.  Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations.

Authors:  Julia Garayoa; Margarita Chevalier; Maria Castillo; Ignacio Mahillo-Fernández; Najim Amallal El Ouahabi; Carmen Estrada; Alejandro Tejerina; Olivia Benitez; Julio Valverde
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  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

Review 5.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  T M Svahn; N Houssami; I Sechopoulos; S Mattsson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Average absorbed breast dose (2ABD): an easy radiation dose index for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Antonio C Traino; Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele M Tucciariello; Chiara Sottocornola; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria E Fantacci
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2020-07-07

Review 7.  The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Authors:  A Hadjipanteli; M Kontos; A Constantinidou
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study.

Authors:  Akram M Asbeutah; Abdullah A AlMajran; Ajit Brindhaban; Saad A Asbeutah
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2020-06-03

9.  Automated volumetric breast density estimation out of digital breast tomosynthesis data: feasibility study of a new software version.

Authors:  Youichi Machida; Ai Saita; Hirofumi Namba; Eisuke Fukuma
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2016-06-18

Review 10.  Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xuan-Anh Phi; Alberto Tagliafico; Nehmat Houssami; Marcel J W Greuter; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-04-03       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.