Literature DB >> 28710582

Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.

Elizabeth H Dibble1, Ana P Lourenco2, Grayson L Baird2,3, Robert C Ward2, A Stanley Maynard2, Martha B Mainiero2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare interobserver variability (IOV), reader confidence, and sensitivity/specificity in detecting architectural distortion (AD) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).
METHODS: This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study used a counterbalanced experimental design. We searched radiology reports for AD on screening mammograms from 5 March 2012-27 November 2013. Cases were consensus-reviewed. Controls were selected from demographically matched non-AD examinations. Two radiologists and two fellows blinded to outcomes independently reviewed images from two patient groups in two sessions. Readers recorded presence/absence of AD and confidence level. Agreement and differences in confidence and sensitivity/specificity between DBT versus DM and attendings versus fellows were examined using weighted Kappa and generalised mixed modeling, respectively.
RESULTS: There were 59 AD patients and 59 controls for 1,888 observations (59 × 2 (cases and controls) × 2 breasts × 2 imaging techniques × 4 readers). For all readers, agreement improved with DBT versus DM (0.61 vs. 0.37). Confidence was higher with DBT, p = .001. DBT achieved higher sensitivity (.59 vs. .32), p < .001; specificity remained high (>.90). DBT achieved higher positive likelihood ratio values, smaller negative likelihood ratio values, and larger ROC values.
CONCLUSIONS: DBT decreases IOV, increases confidence, and improves sensitivity while maintaining high specificity in detecting AD. KEY POINTS: • Digital breast tomosynthesis decreases interobserver variability in the detection of architectural distortion. • Digital breast tomosynthesis increases reader confidence in the detection of architectural distortion. • Digital breast tomosynthesis improves sensitivity in the detection of architectural distortion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Architectural distortion; Breast; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Early diagnosis; Mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28710582     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4968-8

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


  22 in total

Review 1.  Architectural distortion of the breast.

Authors:  Shantanu Gaur; Vandana Dialani; Priscilla J Slanetz; Ronald L Eisenberg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Spectrum of diseases presenting as architectural distortion on mammography: multimodality radiologic imaging with pathologic correlation.

Authors:  Rola Shaheen; Catrien A Schimmelpenninck; Lanu Stoddart; Howard Raymond; Priscilla J Slanetz
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.875

3.  Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings.

Authors:  Kimberly M Ray; Estella Turner; Edward A Sickles; Bonnie N Joe
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Luke Partyka; Ana P Lourenco; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Radial scar of the breast: Is it possible to avoid surgery?

Authors:  A I Ferreira; S Borges; A Sousa; C Ribeiro; A Mesquita; P C Martins; M Peyroteo; N Coimbra; C Leal; P Reis; J A Sousa
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 4.424

6.  Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Phoebe E Freer; Bethany Niell; Elizabeth A Rafferty
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Megan Smith; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta A Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert D Rosenberg; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse; Melissa L Anderson; Bonnie Yankaskas
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.

Authors:  Ingvar Andersson; Debra M Ikeda; Sophia Zackrisson; Mark Ruschin; Tony Svahn; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors.

Authors:  H C Burrell; D M Sibbering; A R Wilson; S E Pinder; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J F Robertson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Matilda Nergården; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  8 in total

1.  Assessment of MRI-detected lesions on screening tomosynthesis in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Sadia Choudhery; Eric Polley; Amy Lynn Conners
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 2.  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

3.  Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Angela M P Coolen; Joost R C Lameijer; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W J Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Malignancy Upgrade Rates of Radial Sclerosing Lesions at Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Pamela Yan; Linda DeMello; Grayson L Baird; Ana P Lourenco
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-11

Review 5.  Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Temitope Emmanuel Komolafe; Cheng Zhang; Oluwatosin Atinuke Olagbaju; Gang Yuan; Qiang Du; Ming Li; Jian Zheng; Xiaodong Yang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.847

6.  Initial Clinical Experience with Stationary Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Yueh Z Lee; Connor Puett; Christina R Inscoe; Beilin Jia; Connie Kim; Ruth Walsh; Sora Yoon; Suk Jung Kim; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Donglin Zeng; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Suspicious Calcifications From Various Populations: A Comparison With Full-field Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Juntao Li; Hengwei Zhang; Hui Jiang; Xuhui Guo; Yinli Zhang; Dan Qi; Jitian Guan; Zhenzhen Liu; Erxi Wu; Suxia Luo
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 7.271

Review 8.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.