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
  • [41] Interval cancer in the Cordoba Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (CBTST): comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis plus digital mammography to digital mammography alone
    Pulido-Carmona, Cristina
    Romero-Martin, Sara
    Raya-Povedano, Jose Luis
    Cara-Garcia, Maria
    Font-Ugalde, Pilar
    Elias-Cabot, Esperanza
    Pedrosa-Garriguet, Margarita
    Alvarez-Benito, Marina
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (08) : 5427 - 5438
  • [42] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study
    Gisella Gennaro
    Alicia Toledano
    Cosimo di Maggio
    Enrica Baldan
    Elisabetta Bezzon
    Manuela La Grassa
    Luigi Pescarini
    Ilaria Polico
    Alessandro Proietti
    Aida Toffoli
    Pier Carlo Muzzio
    European Radiology, 2010, 20 : 1545 - 1553
  • [43] Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study
    Gennaro, Gisella
    Toledano, Alicia
    di Maggio, Cosimo
    Baldan, Enrica
    Bezzon, Elisabetta
    La Grassa, Manuela
    Pescarini, Luigi
    Polico, Ilaria
    Proietti, Alessandro
    Toffoli, Aida
    Muzzio, Pier Carlo
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2010, 20 (07) : 1545 - 1553
  • [44] Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density
    Conant, Emily F.
    Barlow, William E.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Beaber, Elisabeth F.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Lowry, Kathryn P.
    Stout, Natasha K.
    Trentham-Dietz, Amy
    diFlorio-Alexander, Roberta M.
    Li, Christopher I.
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Onega, Tracy
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Onega, Tracy
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Birdwell, Robyn
    Khorasani, Ramin
    Lacson, Ronilda
    Ozanne, Elissa
    Tosteson, Tor D.
    Bronson, Mackenzie
    Chen, Jane
    Goodrich, Martha
    Harris, Kimberly A.
    St Hubert, Stella
    Pearson, Loretta
    Andrews, Steven
    Anton, Kristen
    Batcho, Katrine
    Brawarsky, Phyllis
    Cook, Charles
    Das, Amar
    Dougher, Ryan
    Eliassen, Scottie
    Farr, Scott
    Felone, Carol
    Frazee, Tracy
    Gerlach, Scott
    Getty, George
    Gilman, John
    Hanson, Dick
    Johnson, Dennis
    Joseph, Brenda
    Laam, Leslie A.
    Levin, Brian
    Pyle, Steven
    Sims-Larabee, Laura
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2019, 5 (05) : 635 - 642
  • [45] Cancer Detection with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Harris, Lisa Katherine
    Mai-Tran, Vivian
    Durand, Melissa
    CURRENT RADIOLOGY REPORTS, 2020, 8 (04)
  • [46] Cancer Detection with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Lisa Katherine Harris
    Vivian Mai-Tran
    Melissa Durand
    Current Radiology Reports, 8
  • [47] Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography in Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
    Li, Tong
    Isautier, Jennifer
    Lee, Janie M.
    Marinovich, M. Luke
    Houssami, Nehmat
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2025, 25 (02) : e103 - e112
  • [48] Breast Cancer Screening With Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Reply
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Rafferty, Elizabeth A.
    Conant, Emily F.
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 312 (16): : 1695 - 1696
  • [49] Comparison of Tomosynthesis Plus Digital Mammography and Digital Mammography Alone for Breast Cancer Screening
    Haas, Brian M.
    Kalra, Vivek
    Geisel, Jaime
    Raghu, Madhavi
    Durand, Melissa
    Philpotts, Liane E.
    RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (03) : 694 - 700
  • [50] Digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for detection of breast cancer in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgery
    Misugi Urano
    Norio Shiraki
    Tatsuya Kawai
    Taeko Goto
    Yumi Endo
    Nobuyasu Yoshimoto
    Tatsuya Toyama
    Yuta Shibamoto
    Breast Cancer, 2016, 23 : 706 - 711