Abstract
Compare conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT (CEbCT), tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM). 100 females with BI-RADS 4/5 lesions underwent CEbCT and/or DBT prior to biopsy in this IRB approved, HIPAA compliant study. Two breast radiologists adjudicated lesion conspicuity scores (CS) for each modality independently. Data are shown as mean CS ±standard deviation. Two-sided t-test was used to determine significance between two modalities within each subgroup. Multiple comparisons were controlled by the false-discovery rate set to 5%. 50% of studied lesions were biopsy-confirmed malignancies. Malignant masses were more conspicuous on CEbCT than on DBT or DM (9.7 ±0.5, n = 25; 6.8 ± 3.1, n = 15; 6.7 ± 3.0, n = 27; p < 0.05). Malignant calcifications were equally conspicuous on all three modalities (CEbCT 8.7 ± 0.8, n = 18; DBT 8.5 ± 0.6, n = 15; DM 8.8 ± 0.7, n = 23; p = NS). Benign masses were equally conspicuous on CEbCT (6.6 ± 4.1, n = 22); DBT (6.4 ± 3.8, n = 17); DM (5.9 ± 3.6, n = 24; p = NS). Benign calcifications CS were similar between DBT (8.5 ± 1.0, n = 17) and DM (8.8 ± 0.8, n = 26; p = NS) but less conspicuous on CEbCT (4.0 ± 2.9, n = 25, p < 0.001). 55 females we...Continue Reading
References
May 30, 2002·Medical Physics·John M Boone
Aug 21, 2003·European Journal of Radiology·Meltem GülsünMacit Ariyürek
Feb 16, 2006·Medical Physics·John M BooneThomas R Nelson
Feb 7, 2007·Medical Physics·Alexander L C KwanShih-Ying Huang
Aug 19, 2007·Lancet·Christiane K KuhlHans H Schild
Jul 22, 2009·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·David GurAndriy I Bandos
Dec 25, 2009·European Radiology·Gisella GennaroPier Carlo Muzzio
Jan 20, 2010·Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment·John M BooneKaren K Lindfors
Aug 20, 2010·Radiology·Nicolas D PrionasJohn M Boone
Sep 15, 2010·European Radiology·Clarisse DromainCorinne Balleyguier
Jan 25, 2011·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·M Lee SpanglerDavid Gur
Oct 15, 2011·Radiology·Mitra NoroozianMarilyn A Roubidoux
Jun 8, 2012·The British Journal of Radiology·T M SvahnI Andersson
Nov 13, 2012·Radiology·Margarita L ZuleyDavid Gur
Nov 22, 2012·Radiology·Elizabeth A RaffertyLoren T Niklason
Jan 9, 2013·Radiology·Per SkaaneDavid Gur
Jan 25, 2013·AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology·Kathleen R BrandtJay Mandrekar
Jul 25, 2014·JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association·Sarah M FriedewaldEmily F Conant
Aug 8, 2014·Clinical Radiology·J C MorelM J Michell
Sep 5, 2014·Medical Physics·Ioannis SechopoulosMiriam Von Tiedemann
Apr 3, 2015·Statistical Methods in Medical Research·Beibei Guo, Ying Yuan
Oct 13, 2015·European Journal of Radiology·Chen-Pin ChouHuay-Ben Pan
Nov 2, 2015·European Journal of Radiology·Shadi Aminololama-ShakeriKaren K Lindfors
Apr 27, 2016·JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association·Elizabeth A RaffertyDave P Miller
Citations
Mar 11, 2020·Medical Physics·Veikko RuthWilli A Kalender
Jan 28, 2021·Medical Physics·Hsin Wu TsengSrinivasan Vedantham
Dec 5, 2020·Physics in Medicine and Biology·Peymon Ghazi
Mar 9, 2021·Medical Physics·Antonio SarnoPaolo Russo
Jun 15, 2021·The Breast Journal·Martina GeorgievaErnst-Michael Jung
Aug 4, 2021·European Radiology·Yueqiang ZhuZhaoxiang Ye
Sep 4, 2021·European Radiology·Yueqiang ZhuZhaoxiang Ye