Literature DB >> 29584593

Outcome of Architectural Distortion Detected Only at Breast Tomosynthesis versus 2D Mammography.

Taghreed I Alshafeiy1, Jonathon V Nguyen1, Carrie M Rochman1, Brandi T Nicholson1, James T Patrie1, Jennifer A Harvey1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the outcome of architectural distortion (AD) without associated mass only on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with AD seen at two-dimensional (2D) mammography and to evaluate if the incidence of malignancy is influenced by the presence of a correlate at ultrasonography (US). Materials and Methods This retrospective study had institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. All consecutive cases in which patients with AD were ultimately assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5 categories from 2009 to 2016 were reviewed by three readers for visibility (2D vs DBT). The level of suspicion was assigned using a Likert scale. Pathologic results were compared between 2D-detected and DBT-detected AD. Frequencies were compared by using the McNemar and Pearson χ2 exact tests. Results One hundred eighty-one AD lesions were included; 122 (67.4%) were 2D visible while 59 (32.6%) were DBT detected. Forty-two women (with 43 lesions) underwent 2D mammography prior to initiation of DBT. In 117 women with 121 AD lesions who underwent 2D mammography plus DBT, 59 lesions (48.8%) were detected only with DBT. The malignancy rate based on final pathology was significantly higher for 2D-detected AD (53 [43.4%] of 122) compared with DBT (six [10.2%] of 59) (P < .001). A US correlate was more frequent with 2D-detected AD (103 [84.4%] of 122) than DBT (33 [55.9%] of 59) (P < .001). Malignancy rate was not different for DBT-detected AD with (four [12.1%] of 33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4%, 28.2%]) or without (two [7.7%] of 26; 95% CI: 0.9%, 25.1%]) a US correlate. NPV based on radiologists' level of suspicion was high (91.8%-98.0%) but not sufficient enough to forgo biopsy. Conclusion DBT-detected suspicious AD has a lower malignancy outcome compared with 2D mammography-detected suspicious AD, although still high enough to warrant biopsy. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29584593     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018171159

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


  9 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.  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

3.  Outcomes of Canceled Tomosynthesis-Guided Biopsy of Architectural Distortion Due to Nonvisualization.

Authors:  Kelly S Myers; Eniola T Oluyemi; Lisa A Mullen; Babita Panigrahi; Philip A Di Carlo; Derek L Nguyen; Emily B Ambinder
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2022-06-20

4.  The added value of an artificial intelligence system in assisting radiologists on indeterminate BI-RADS 0 mammograms.

Authors:  Chunyan Yi; Yuxing Tang; Rushan Ouyang; Yanbo Zhang; Zhenjie Cao; Zhicheng Yang; Shibin Wu; Mei Han; Jing Xiao; Peng Chang; Jie Ma
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 7.034

5.  Positive Predictive Value of Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsies of Architectural Distortions Seen on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and without an Ultrasound Correlate.

Authors:  Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Adrienne Newburg; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2019-11-18

6.  Focus on the Predictive Value of Subclassification of Extratumoral Structural Abnormalities for Malignant Nonspiculate and Noncalcified Masses on Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Ye Xu; Jianghong Sun; Fei Guo; Abiyasi Nanding; Qiyang Li; Dan Jiang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 4.599

7.  Evaluation of the Combination of Artificial Intelligence and Radiologist Assessments to Interpret Malignant Architectural Distortion on Mammography.

Authors:  Yun Wan; Yunfei Tong; Yuanyuan Liu; Yan Huang; Guoyan Yao; Daniel Q Chen; Bo Liu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 5.738

8.  Image Quality Comparison between Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images and 2D Mammographic Images Using the CDMAM Test Object.

Authors:  Ioannis A Tsalafoutas; Angeliki C Epistatou; Konstantinos K Delibasis
Journal:  J Imaging       Date:  2022-08-21

Review 9.  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
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.