Skip to main content
main-content

17.08.2017 | Clinical trial | Ausgabe 3/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2017

Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories

Zeitschrift:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment > Ausgabe 3/2017
Autoren:
Giovanna Mariscotti, Manuela Durando, Nehmat Houssami, Mirella Fasciano, Alberto Tagliafico, Davide Bosco, Cristina Casella, Camilla Bogetti, Laura Bergamasco, Paolo Fonio, Giovanni Gandini

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the interpretive performance of synthetic mammography (SM), reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic setting, covering different conditions of breast density and mammographic signs.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 patients, who underwent FFDM and DBT (from which SM images were reconstructed) between September 2014–September 2015. The study included 250 suspicious breast lesions, all biopsy proven: 148 (59.2%) malignant and 13 (5.2%) high-risk lesions were confirmed by surgery, 89 (35.6%) benign lesions had radiological follow-up. Two breast radiologists, blinded to histology, independently reviewed all cases. Readings were performed with SM alone, then with FFDM, collecting data on: probability of malignancy for each finding, lesion conspicuity, mammographic features and dimensions of detected lesions.

Results

Agreement between readers was good for BI-RADS classification (Cohen’s k-coefficient = 0.93 ± 0.02) and for lesion dimension (Wilcoxon’s p = 0.76). Visibility scores assigned to SM and FFDM for each lesion were similar for non-dense and dense breasts, however, there were significant differences (p = 0.0009) in distribution of mammographic features subgroups. SM and FFDM had similar sensitivities in non-dense (respectively 94 vs. 91%) and dense breasts (88 vs. 80%) and for all mammographic signs (93 vs. 87% for asymmetric densities, 96 vs. 75% for distortion, 92 vs. 85% for microcalcifications, and both 94% for masses). Based on all data, there was a significant difference in sensitivity for SM (92%) vs. FFDM (87%), p = 0.02, whereas the two modalities yielded similar results for specificity (SM: 60%, FFDM: 62%, p = 0.21).

Conclusions

SM alone showed similar interpretive performance to FFDM, confirming its potential role as an alternative to FFDM in women having tomosynthesis, with the added advantage of halving the patient’s dose exposure.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2017 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

  2. Das kostenlose Testabonnement läuft nach 14 Tagen automatisch und formlos aus. Dieses Abonnement kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Onkologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise