Literature DB >> 29131762

Strengths and Weaknesses of Synthetic Mammography in Screening.

Linda Ratanaprasatporn1, Sona A Chikarmane1, Catherine S Giess1.   

Abstract

Synthetic mammography (SM) consists of two-dimensional images reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) data. Unlike standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM), SM does not require additional radiation exposure. SM is being introduced in breast imaging centers because early clinical data demonstrate that synthetic images are comparable to FFDM in cancer detection, positive predictive values, and recall rates. SM has completely replaced FFDM in some practices. Thus, an understanding of SM and its strengths and weaknesses compared with those of FFDM is essential. The artifacts of SM include blurring subcutaneous tissue, loss of resolution in the axilla on mediolateral oblique views, pseudocalcifications, and decreased resolution near foreign bodies (eg, biopsy markers). SM's strengths include a reduced radiation dose, shorter acquisition time compared with a combined FFDM/DBT screening examination (with potentially less motion artifact), and increased conspicuity of calcifications, spiculated margins, and architectural distortion. The weaknesses of SM include the potential for false positives due to pseudocalcifications and the difficulty in assessing for motion artifact. This article reviews SM and its role in screening and presents clinical cases to highlight SM's strengths, weaknesses, and artifacts. ©RSNA, 2017.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29131762     DOI: 10.1148/rg.2017170032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  11 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Technical evaluation of image quality in synthetic mammograms obtained from 15° and 40° digital breast tomosynthesis in a commercial system: a quantitative comparison.

Authors:  Patrizio Barca; Rocco Lamastra; Raffaele Maria Tucciariello; Antonio Traino; Carolina Marini; Giacomo Aringhieri; Davide Caramella; Maria Evelina Fantacci
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2020-11-23

3.  Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Sally D Herschorn; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.

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

5.  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

6.  Applying synthetic radiography to intraoral tomosynthesis: a step towards achieving 3D imaging in the dental clinic.

Authors:  Connor Puett; Christina R Inscoe; Robert L Hilton; Michael W Regan Anderson; Lisa Perrone; Savannah Puett; Laurence R Gaalaas; Enrique Platin; Jianping Lu; Otto Zhou
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Anne Marie McCarthy; Lauren Pantalone; Marie Synnestvedt; Despina Kontos; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 29.146

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

Review 9.  Synthesized Mammography: Clinical Evidence, Appearance, and Implementation.

Authors:  Melissa A Durand
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-04

Review 10.  Lymph Node Imaging in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: Concurrent Diagnostic Tools.

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Daly Avendano; Pedro Zapata; Christopher C Riedl; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-10-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.