Literature DB >> 33717771

Effectiveness of Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in the Diagnosis of Suspicious Lesions for Breast Cancer in an Asymptomatic Population.

Lourdes Noemi Santos Aragon1, Dafne Soto-Trujillo1.   

Abstract

Introduction The most frequent malignant tumor in women is breast cancer. A dense breast may mask lesions within the tissue. The constant improvement in diagnosis techniques has made the diagnosis more accurate. Digital mammography loses sensitivity in dense breasts as lesions may be masked by the over-position of tissue. Tomosynthesis increases sensitivity and specificity over diagnostic mammography. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in asymptomatic patients. Materials and methods A cohort study of 1,499 Mexican patients that came for screening at a private health service from January to December 2015. A Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) classification was given by a breast radiologist with the digital mammography reading. Later, a second breast radiologist reviewed the same patients with tomosynthesis and assigned a second BI-RADS category. Results Patients were divided into three age groups. The one with the most had patients between 40-49 years (51.3%), where re-staging to a higher BI-RADS occurred in 40 patients. Re-staging to a lower category was most common in the group of age above 50, where 30 patients were assigned BI-RADS 2 after tomosynthesis. Dense breast (C and D) represented 38%. After tomosynthesis, 28 patients were classified as BI-RADS 4 or 5. The prevalence of diseases in groups BI-RADS 4 and BI-RADS 5 after re-staging and a breast cancer result was 0.024, with a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 88%. When re-staging 2D mammography with 3D tomosynthesis for suspicious lesions classified BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5, the prevalence was 0.23, with a sensitivity of 45% and a specificity of 98%. In this study, patients were asymptomatic, yet 20 breast cancers were detected, with a sensitivity of 54% and a specificity of 88%, exceeding the specificity of diagnostic mammography. Moreover, when re-staging to a BI-RADS of suspicious findings, the sensitivity was 45%, with a specificity of as high as 98%.
Copyright © 2021, Santos Aragon et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; digital breast tomosynthesis (dbt); re-staging

Year:  2021        PMID: 33717771      PMCID: PMC7952495          DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cureus        ISSN: 2168-8184


  12 in total

1.  Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images.

Authors:  I Reiser; R M Nishikawa; M L Giger; T Wu; E A Rafferty; R Moore; D B Kopans
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Analysis of parenchymal texture with digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison with digital mammography and implications for cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Lynda C Ikejimba; Predrag R Bakic; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Indications and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Heather R Peppard; Brandi E Nicholson; Carrie M Rochman; Judith K Merchant; Ray C Mayo; Jennifer A Harvey
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  Artifacts in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  William R Geiser; Samuel A Einstein; Wei-Tse Yang
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Amy E Kelly; Victor J Catullo; Grace Y Rathfon; Amy H Lu; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging?

Authors:  M Alakhras; R Bourne; M Rickard; K H Ng; M Pietrzyk; P C Brennan
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 2.350

7.  Discussions of Dense Breasts, Breast Cancer Risk, and Screening Choices in 2019.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Åsne S Holen; Hildegunn S Aase; Nehmat Houssami; Sofie Sebuødegård; Tron A Moger; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Lars A Akslen
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Value of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Additional Views for the Assessment of Screen-Detected Abnormalities - a First Analysis.

Authors:  Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jaensch; Astrid Hacker; Sabina Wulz-Horber; Thomas Mertelmeier; Dieter Hölzel
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 10.  An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer.

Authors:  Shayan Shaghayeq Nazari; Pinku Mukherjee
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 4.239

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.