Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography

Korean Journal of Radiology : Official Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
Sun Ah KimWoo Kyung Moon

Abstract

To compare the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional breast ultrasound (US) to characterize breast lesions as benign or malignant. A total of 332 women, presenting for screening examinations or for breast biopsy between March and June 2012 were recruited to undergo digital mammography (DM), DBT, and breast US examination. Among them, 113 patients with 119 breast lesions depicted on DM were finally included. Three blinded radiologists performed an enriched reader study and reviewed the DBT and US images. Each reader analyzed the lesions in random order, assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors, rated the images for the likelihood of malignancy (%) and made a BI-RADS final assessment. Diagnostic accuracy, as assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity of DBT and US were compared. Among the 119 breast lesions depicted on DM, 75 were malignant and the remaining 44 were benign. The average diagnostic performance for characterizing breast lesions as benign or malignant in terms of area under the curve was 0.899 for DBT and 0.914 for US (p = 0.394). Mean sensitivity (97.3% vs. 98.7%, p = 0.508) and specificit...Continue Reading

References

Jul 3, 1996·JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association·K KerlikowskeV Ernster
Nov 14, 1997·Radiology·L T NiklasonR F Wirth
Jul 6, 2000·Journal of the National Cancer Institute·M T MandelsonE White
Aug 16, 2000·Radiologic Clinics of North America·L W Bassett
May 23, 2003·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·Isabelle LeconteBaudouin Maldague
May 28, 2003·Archives of Internal Medicine·Karin FlobbeJoseph M A van Engelshoven
Oct 28, 2005·The New England Journal of Medicine·Donald A BerryUNKNOWN Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Collaborators
Mar 22, 2008·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·Walter F GoodDavid Gur
Apr 24, 2008·European Radiology·Luc D B VercauterenKarin Flobbe
Jul 22, 2009·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·David GurAndriy I Bandos
Aug 7, 2009·European Radiology·Hendrik J TeertstraKenneth G A Gilhuijs
Dec 25, 2009·European Radiology·Gisella GennaroPier Carlo Muzzio
Jul 24, 2010·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·Christiane M HakimDavid Gur
Oct 12, 2011·European Radiology·Alberto TagliaficoMassimo Calabrese
Jan 24, 2014·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·Daniel B Kopans
Jun 18, 2014·Ultrasonography·Su Hyun LeeUNKNOWN Korean Breast Elastography Study Group

❮ Previous
Next ❯

Citations

Jun 22, 2015·Clinical Imaging·Alison ChetlenTiffany Chan
Aug 10, 2016·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine : Official Journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine·Xuelei MaWenwu Ling
Aug 19, 2017·Annals of Surgical Oncology·Hyun Woo ChungEun Jeong Lee
Jul 9, 2016·Korean Journal of Radiology : Official Journal of the Korean Radiological Society·Eun Hye LeeJae Kwan Jun
Sep 3, 2016·Korean Journal of Radiology : Official Journal of the Korean Radiological Society·Young Jun ChoiSeong Ho Park
Nov 2, 2017·Korean Journal of Radiology : Official Journal of the Korean Radiological Society·Ji Eun ParkSeong Ho Park
Jul 4, 2017·Korean Journal of Radiology : Official Journal of the Korean Radiological Society·Young Joong KimUNKNOWN Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea (ABCS-K)
Sep 7, 2018·Clinical Cancer Research : an Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research·Meredith C HendersonJudith K Wolf

❮ Previous
Next ❯

Methods Mentioned

BETA
biopsies
biopsy
X-ray

Software Mentioned

MedCalc
SPSS

Related Concepts

Related Feeds

Cancer Imaging

Imaging techniques, including CT and MR, have become essential to tumor detection, diagnosis, and monitoring. Here is the latest research on cancer imaging.