Literature DB >> 27139264

Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.

Madhavi Raghu1, Melissa A Durand1, Liva Andrejeva1, Alexander Goehler1, Mark H Michalski1, Jaime L Geisel1, Regina J Hooley1, Laura J Horvath1, Reni Butler1, Howard P Forman1, Liane E Philpotts1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the effect of tomosynthesis in diagnostic mammography on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment categories over time. Materials and Methods This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. The authors reviewed all diagnostic mammograms obtained during a 12-month interval before (two-dimensional [2D] mammography [June 2, 2010, to June 1, 2011]) and for 3 consecutive years after (tomosynthesis year 1 [2012], tomosynthesis year 2 [2013], and tomosynthesis year 3 [2014]) the implementation of tomosynthesis. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. The rates of BI-RADS final assessment categories 1-5 were compared between the 2D and tomosynthesis groups. The positive predictive values after biopsy (PPV3) for BI-RADS category 4 and 5 cases were compared. The mammographic features (masses, architectural distortions, calcifications, focal asymmetries) of lesions categorized as probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) and those for which biopsy was recommended (BI-RADS category 4 or 5) were reviewed. The χ(2) test was used to compare the rates of BI-RADS final assessment categories 1-5 between the two groups, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to compare all diagnostic studies categorized as BI-RADS 3-5. Results There was an increase in the percentage of cases reported as negative or benign (BI-RADS category 1 or 2) with tomosynthesis (58.7% with 2D mammography vs 75.8% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P < .0001). A reduction in the percentage of probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) final assessments also occurred (33.3% with 2D mammography vs 16.4% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P < .0001). Although the rates of BI-RADS 4 or 5 assessments did not change significantly with tomosynthesis (8.0% with 2D mammography vs 7.8% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P = .2), there was a significant increase in the PPV3 (29.6% vs 50%, respectively; P < .0001). These trends increased during the 3 years of tomosynthesis use. Conclusion Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting resulted in progressive shifts in the BI-RADS final assessment categories over time, with a significant increase in the proportion of studies classified as normal, a continued decrease in the rate of studies categorized as probably benign, and improved diagnostic confidence in biopsy recommendations. (©) RSNA, 2016.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27139264     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  6 in total

1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade.

Authors:  Geunwon Kim; Peter G Mikhael; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl; Sarah Mercaldo; Charmi A Vijapura; Anne Marie McCarthy; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview.

Authors:  Ekta Dhamija; Malvika Gulati; S V S Deo; Ajay Gogia; Smriti Hari
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-15

Review 6.  BI-RADS 3: Current and Future Use of Probably Benign.

Authors:  Karen A Lee; Nishi Talati; Rebecca Oudsema; Sharon Steinberger; Laurie R Margolies
Journal:  Curr Radiol Rep       Date:  2018-01-27
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.