Performance evaluation of digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound in the detection of breast cancer using pathology as gold standard: an institutional experience

被引:4
|
作者
Joshi, Pranjali [1 ]
Singh, Neha [1 ]
Raj, Gaurav [1 ]
Singh, Ragini [1 ]
Malhotra, Kiran Preet [2 ]
Awasthi, Namrata Punit [2 ]
机构
[1] Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Inst Med Sci, Dept Radiodiag, Lucknow 226010, Uttar Pradesh, India
[2] Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Inst Med Sci, Dept Pathol, Lucknow 226010, Uttar Pradesh, India
来源
EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE | 2022年 / 53卷 / 01期
关键词
Breast cancer; Mammography; Tomosynthesis; US; PREOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; BENIGN; WOMEN; US; CALCIFICATIONS; MASSES; RATES; DBT;
D O I
10.1186/s43055-021-00675-y
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Mammography is the primary imaging modality for diagnosing breast cancer in women more than 40 years of age. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), when supplemented with digital mammography (DM), is useful for increasing the sensitivity and improving BIRADS characterization by removing the overlapping effect. Ultrasonography (US), when combined with the above combination, further increases the sensitivity and diagnostic confidence. Since most of the research regarding tomosynthesis has been in screening settings, we wanted to quantify its role in diagnostic mammography. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of DM alone vs. DM combined with DBT vs. DM plus DBT and ultrasound in diagnosing malignant breast neoplasms with the gold standard being histopathology or cytology. Results: A prospective study of 1228 breasts undergoing diagnostic or screening mammograms was undertaken at our institute. Patients underwent 2 views DM, single view DBT and US. BIRADS category was updated after each step. Final categorization was made with all three modalities combined and pathological correlation was done for those cases in which suspicious findings were detected, i.e. 256 cases. Diagnosis based on pathology was done for 256 cases out of which 193 (75.4%) were malignant and the rest 63 (24.6%) were benign. The diagnostic accuracy of DM alone was 81.1%. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 87.8%, 60%, 81.3% and 61.1%, respectively. With DM + DBT the diagnostic accuracy was 84.8%. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 92%, 56.5%, 89% and 65%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DM + DBT+ US was found to be 85.1% and Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 96.3%, 50.7%, 85.7% and 82%, respectively. Conclusion: The combination of DBT to DM led to higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and PPV. The addition of US to DM and DBT further increased the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy and significantly increased the NPV even in diagnostic mammograms and should be introduced in routine practice for characterizing breast neoplasms.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis in Combination With Digital Mammography
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Rose, Stephen L.
    Durand, Melissa A.
    Plecha, Donna M.
    Greenberg, Julianne S.
    Hayes, Mary K.
    Copit, Debra S.
    Carlson, Kara L.
    Cink, Thomas M.
    Barke, Lora D.
    Greer, Linda N.
    Miller, Dave P.
    Conant, Emily F.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2499 - 2507
  • [22] Assessing dedicated breast PET performance in breast cancer screening alongside digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and ultrasound: a reader's insight
    Arachchige, Arosh S. Perera Molligoda
    ANNALS OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2024, 38 (01) : 81 - 82
  • [23] Assessing dedicated breast PET performance in breast cancer screening alongside digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and ultrasound: a reader's insight
    Arosh S. Perera Molligoda Arachchige
    Annals of Nuclear Medicine, 2024, 38 : 81 - 82
  • [24] Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Not All Mammography Is Equal
    Bahl, Manisha
    Lehman, Constance D.
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2019, 5 (05) : 642 - 643
  • [25] Initial Experience With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening Mammography
    Philpotts, L.
    Raghu, M.
    Durand, M.
    Hooley, R.
    Vashi, R.
    Horvath, L.
    Geisel, J.
    Butler, R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 198 (05)
  • [26] Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography
    Zuckerman, Samantha P.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Conant, Emily F.
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 297 (03) : 545 - 553
  • [27] Effect of radiologists’ experience on breast cancer detection and localization using digital breast tomosynthesis
    Maram M. Alakhras
    Patrick C. Brennan
    Mary Rickard
    Roger Bourne
    Claudia Mello-Thoms
    European Radiology, 2015, 25 : 402 - 409
  • [28] Effect of radiologists' experience on breast cancer detection and localization using digital breast tomosynthesis
    Alakhras, Maram M.
    Brennan, Patrick C.
    Rickard, Mary
    Bourne, Roger
    Mello-Thoms, Claudia
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2015, 25 (02) : 402 - 409
  • [29] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts
    Ha, Su Min
    Yi, Ann
    Yim, Dahae
    Jang, Myoung-jin
    Kwon, Bo Ra
    Shin, Sung Ui
    Lee, Eun Jae
    Lee, Soo Hyun
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    Chang, Jung Min
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 24 (04) : 274 - 283
  • [30] Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: State of the art
    Sechopoulos, Ioannis
    Teuwen, Jonas
    Mann, Ritse
    SEMINARS IN CANCER BIOLOGY, 2021, 72 : 214 - 225