Literature DB >> 29931560

Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.

Ji Soo Choi1, Boo-Kyung Han2, Eun Young Ko1, Ga Ram Kim3, Eun Sook Ko1, Ko Woon Park1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of synthetic mammography (SM) and digital mammography (DM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or alone for the evaluation of microcalcifications.
METHODS: This retrospective study includes 198 mammography cases, all with DM, SM, and DBT images, from January to October 2013. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded the presence of microcalcifications and their conspicuity scores and final BI-RADS categories (1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5). Readers' area under the ROC curves (AUCs) were analyzed for SM plus DBT vs. DM plus DBT and SM alone vs. DM alone using the BI-RADS categories for the overall group and dense breast subgroup.
RESULTS: Conspicuity scores of detected microcalcifications were neither significantly different between SM and DM with DBT nor alone (p>0.05). In predicting malignancy of detected microcalcifications, no significant difference was found between readers' AUCs for SM and DM with DBT or alone in the overall group or dense breast subgroup (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performances of SM and DM for the evaluation of microcalcifications are not significantly different, whether performed with DBT or alone. KEY POINTS: • In DBT-imaging, SM and DM show comparable performances when evaluating microcalcifications. • For BI-RADS classification of microcalcifications, SM and DM show similar AUCs. • DBT with SM may be sufficient for diagnosing microcalcifications, without DM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnosis; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Microcalcification; Synthetic image

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29931560     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5585-x

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


  30 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 (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Randi Gullien; Hilde Bjørndal; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Gunnar Jahr; Ingvild Naess Jebsen; Mona Krager
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 1.990

3.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Alicia Toledano; Cosimo di Maggio; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Aida Toffoli; Pier Carlo Muzzio
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial).

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics.

Authors:  Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 6.  Clinical implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Eben; Ingvild N Jebsen; Mona Krager; Unni Haakenaasen; Ulrika Ekseth; Mina Izadi; Solveig Hofvind; Randi Gullien
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Carmen Stevanin; Giulio Tagliafico; Lucia Martino; Bianca Bignotti; Massimo Calabrese; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool.

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Ken C Young
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  6 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.  Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms: a quantitative assessment.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Mundher Al-Shabi; Wai Yee Chan; Leya Thomas; Kartini Rahmat; Kwan Hoong Ng
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for microcalcifications and margins to microcalcifications in breast specimens.

Authors:  Claudia Neubauer; Jannina Samantha Yilmaz; Peter Bronsert; Martin Pichotka; Fabian Bamberg; Marisa Windfuhr-Blum; Thalia Erbes; Jakob Neubauer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-21       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  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 5.  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

6.  One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting?

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Pascal A T Baltzer; Panagiotis Kapetas; Ramona Woitek; Michael Weber; Federica Leone; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.