Literature DB >> 31084481

Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.

Katrina E Korhonen1, Emily F Conant1, Eric A Cohen1, Marie Synnestvedt1, Elizabeth S McDonald1, Susan P Weinstein1.   

Abstract

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to improve screening outcomes compared with digital mammography (DM) alone. However, little is known about differences in breast cancer conspicuity between DM and DBT or by mammographic view. Purpose To compare conspicuity of breast cancers at DM versus DBT and by mammographic view, craniocaudal (CC) versus mediolateral oblique (MLO). Materials and Methods Lesion conspicuity was graded by three readers by using a 0-5 numerical scale on both DM and DBT images from combined DM and DBT studies for 197 consecutive screening-detected cancers in women (mean age, 60.4 years ± 11.1 [standard deviation]) from October 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014. Intermodality (ie, DM vs DBT) and intramodality (ie, CC vs MLO) analyses were performed. For intramodality analyses, conspicuity was analyzed by view, CC versus MLO, within the same modality. Conspicuity grades were dichotomized into low (scores 0-3) and high (scores 4 and 5) conspicuity. This binary result was assessed by using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with logit link function, random-effect intercept for reader, and compound symmetry covariance structure for lesion. Results Cancers were more likely to be high conspicuity at DBT than at DM (odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9, 3.0; P < .01). At both DM and DBT, cancers were more likely to be high conspicuity at the CC than the MLO view (DM vs DBT OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.3, 1.9] vs 1.7 [95% CI: 1.3, 2.1], respectively; P < .01 for both). Cancers seen at one view only were more often detected at CC than MLO for both DM and DBT (DM vs DBT OR, 1.6 [95% CI: 1.2, 2.0] vs 3.6 [95% CI: 1.9, 7.0], respectively; P < .01.). Conclusion Cancers were more conspicuous at digital breast tomosynthesis than at digital mammography. Cancers may only be detected at one of two views, and they are more likely to be seen at the craniocaudal view. © RSNA, 2019.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31084481      PMCID: PMC6604793          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182027

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


  21 in total

1.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

2.  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

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.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  T M Svahn; D P Chakraborty; D Ikeda; S Zackrisson; Y Do; S Mattsson; I Andersson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

Authors:  Sarah M Friedewald; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Stephen L Rose; Melissa A Durand; Donna M Plecha; Julianne S Greenberg; Mary K Hayes; Debra S Copit; Kara L Carlson; Thomas M Cink; Lora D Barke; Linda N Greer; Dave P Miller; Emily F Conant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

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

Review 9.  Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.

Authors:  Katrina E Korhonen; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Anders Tingberg; Pontus Timberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  4 in total

1.  Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Samantha P Zuckerman; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Katrina E Korhonen; Julia A Birnbaum; Jennifer D Tobey; Mitchell D Schnall; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Optimization of the Radiation Dose of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Opportunistic Screening by Studying the Effect of Different Combinations of FFDM and DBT Views.

Authors:  Meihong Sheng; Juan Ji; Chenying Zhang; Zirui Zhang; Shenchu Gong; Yihua Lu
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-03-30

3.  Tumor-to-Gland Volume Ratio versus Tumor-to-Breast Ratio as Measured on CBBCT: Possible Predictors of Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Authors:  Jiawei Li; Guobin Zhong; Keqiong Wang; Wei Kang; Wei Wei
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  Improving the Ability of Deep Neural Networks to Use Information from Multiple Views in Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Nan Wu; Stanisław Jastrzębski; Jungkyu Park; Linda Moy; Kyunghyun Cho; Krzysztof J Geras
Journal:  Proc Mach Learn Res       Date:  2020-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.