Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Is Comparable to Mammographic Spot Views for Mass Characterization
158
Zitationen
10
Autoren
2011
Jahr
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) performs comparably to mammographic spot views (MSVs) in characterizing breast masses as benign or malignant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study obtained informed consent from all subjects. Four blinded Mammography Quality Standards Act-certified academic radiologists individually evaluated DBT images and MSVs of 67 masses (30 malignant, 37 benign) in 67 women (age range, 34-88 years). Images were viewed in random order at separate counterbalanced sessions and were rated for visibility (10-point scale), likelihood of malignancy (12-point scale), and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Differences in mass visibility were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. Reader performance was measured by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) and partial area index above a sensitivity threshold of 0.90 (A(z)(0.90)) by using likelihood of malignancy ratings. Masses categorized as BI-RADS 4 or 5 were compared with histopathologic analysis to determine true-positive results for each modality. RESULTS: Mean mass visibility ratings were slightly better with DBT (range, 3.2-4.4) than with MSV (range, 3.8-4.8) for all four readers, with one reader's improvement achieving statistical significance (P = .001). The A(z) ranged 0.89-0.93 for DBT and 0.88-0.93 for MSV (P ≥ .23). The A(z)((0.90)) ranged 0.36-0.52 for DBT and 0.25-0.40 for MSV (P ≥ .20). The readers characterized seven additional malignant masses as BI-RADS 4 or 5 with DBT than with MSV, at a cost of five false-positive biopsy recommendations, with a mean of 1.8 true-positive (range, 0-3) and 1.3 false-positive (range, -1 to 4) assessments per reader. CONCLUSION: In this small study, mass characterization in terms of visibility ratings, reader performance, and BI-RADS assessment with DBT was similar to that with MSVs. Preliminary findings suggest that MSV might not be necessary for mass characterization when performing DBT.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): Maintaining and Operating a Public Information Repository
2013 · 4.545 Zit.
Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer
2007 · 2.446 Zit.
Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis
2006 · 2.153 Zit.
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
2016 · 2.117 Zit.
Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians
2013 · 1.989 Zit.