A comparison of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the detection of microcalcifications by correlating mammographic and pathologic findings

被引:0
作者
Farghadani, Maryam [1 ]
Ghadiri-faraz, Bahar [1 ]
Riahinezhad, Maryam [1 ]
Sarami, Sahar [1 ]
机构
[1] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Dept Radiol & Imaging, Esfahan, Iran
来源
IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA PERSA | 2024年 / 10卷 / 02期
关键词
Breast cancer; Breast microcalcification; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Full-field digital mammography; Screening; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; CANCER; CALCIFICATIONS; COMBINATION; CLUSTERS;
D O I
10.34172/ipp.2024.40613
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Introduction: Breast micro-calcifications primarily represent benign conditions; they might be regarded as the earliest presentations of malignancies. As a well-known procedure, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is a 2-dimensional (2-D) imaging modality most frequently used in breast cancer screening. DBT, i.e., digital breast tomosynthesis, on the other hand, is a 3- 3-dimensional (3-D) modality increasingly attracting the attention of researchers in the field for clinical applications. Objectives: The present study compares FFDM values against DBT technique data- considered a valuable means of screening breast cancers. Patients and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study conducted on 92 suspected breast cancer patients who underwent screening assessments using both FFDM and DBT. The breast calcification and density categories were identified according to ACR BI-RADS (American College of Radiology Breast Imaging- Reporting and Data System). The calcifications were categorized as benign (BIRADS 2 and 3) or malignant (BIRADS 4 and 5). The histopathological findings from the biopsied lesions were considered the gold standard for breast cancer diagnosis. The outcomes of FFDM and DBT were compared. Results: The total sensitivity of DBT in identifying benign versus malignant lesions was 96.7%. In the case of FFMD, the sensitivity value was 90.2%. On the other hand, both modalities revealed similar specificity, accounting for 8.7%. The area under the curve (AUC) accounted for 0.527 for DBT and 0.505 for FFDM. The overall agreement coefficient for the two radiologists in the identification of micro-calcifications accounted for 0.613 (95% CI: 0.394-0.823). This agreement coefficient for FFDM was 0.676 (95% CI: 0.412, 0.940), and the value for the DBT procedure was 0.517 (95% CI: 0.147, 0.887). Conclusion: According to the current study, DBT can be considered a powerful tool in screening and diagnosing microcalcifications such as FFDM in breast tissue. Although the sensitivity of DBT is remarkably high, its specificity is not justifiable.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Synthetic Mammography, and Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Alabousi, Mostafa
    Wadera, Akshay
    Al-Ghita, Mohammed Kashif
    Al-Ghetaa, Rayeh Kashef
    Salameh, Jean-Paul
    Pozdnyakov, Alex
    Zha, Nanxi
    Samoilov, Lucy
    Sharifabadi, Anahita Dehmoobad
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Freitas, Vivianne
    McInnes, Matthew D. F.
    Alabousi, Abdullah
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2021, 113 (06): : 680 - 690
  • [2] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A New Diagnostic Method for Mass-Like Lesions in Dense Breasts
    Bian, Tiantian
    Lin, Qing
    Cui, Chunxiao
    Li, Lili
    Qi, Chunhua
    Fei, Jie
    Su, Xiaohui
    [J]. BREAST JOURNAL, 2016, 22 (05) : 535 - 540
  • [3] Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications
    Choi, Ji Soo
    Han, Boo-Kyung
    Ko, Eun Young
    Kim, Ga Ram
    Ko, Eun Sook
    Park, Ko Woon
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (01) : 319 - 329
  • [4] Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice
    Chong, Alice
    Weinstein, Susan P.
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    Conant, Emily F.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2019, 292 (01) : 1 - 14
  • [5] Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications
    Clauser, Paola
    Nagl, Georg
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Pinker-Domenig, Katja
    Weber, Michael
    Kapetas, Panagiotis
    Bernathova, Maria
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (12) : 2161 - 2168
  • [6] Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium
    Conant, Emily F.
    Beaber, Elisabeth F.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Herschorn, Sally D.
    Weaver, Donald L.
    Onega, Tracy
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Poplack, Steven P.
    Haas, Jennifer S.
    Armstrong, Katrina
    Schnall, Mitchell D.
    Barlow, William E.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2016, 156 (01) : 109 - 116
  • [7] Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion
    Dibble, Elizabeth H.
    Lourenco, Ana P.
    Baird, Grayson L.
    Ward, Robert C.
    Maynard, A. Stanley
    Mainiero, Martha B.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (01) : 3 - 10
  • [8] Ferreira Vera Christina Camargo de Siqueira, 2018, Radiol Bras, V51, P87, DOI 10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0025
  • [9] 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.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (24): : 2499 - 2507
  • [10] Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis
    Gennaro, Gisella
    Bernardi, D.
    Houssami, N.
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (02) : 573 - 581