Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound

被引:15
|
作者
Cho, Kyu Ran [1 ]
Seo, Bo Kyoung [2 ]
Woo, Ok Hee [3 ]
Song, Sung Eun [1 ]
Choi, Jungsoon [4 ]
Whang, Shin Young [1 ]
Park, Eun Kyung [1 ]
Park, Ah Young [2 ]
Shin, Hyeseon [3 ]
Chung, Hwan Hoon [2 ]
机构
[1] Korea Univ, Coll Med, Korea Univ Anam Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Korea Univ, Coll Med, Korea Univ Ansan Hosp, Dept Radiol, 123 Jeokgeum Ro, Ansan 15355, South Korea
[3] Korea Univ, Coll Med, Korea Univ Guro Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Hanyang Univ, Sch Nat Sci, Dept Math, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Breast neoplasms; Computer-assisted diagnosis; Early detection of cancer; Mammary ultrasonography; Mammography; CARCINOMA IN-SITU; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; SENSITIVITY; DENSITY; TRIAL; WOMEN; SONOGRAPHY; US;
D O I
10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.316
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: We aimed to compare the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM), FFDM with computer-aided detection (FFDM+CAD), ultrasound (US), and FFDM+CAD plus US (FFDM+CAD+US), and to investigate the factors affecting cancer detection. Methods: In this retrospective study conducted from 2008 to 2012, 48,251 women underwent FFDM and US for cancer screening. One hundred seventy-one breast cancers were detected: 115 invasive cancers and 56 carcinomas in situ. Two radiologists evaluated the imaging findings of FFDM, FFDM+CAD, and US, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon of the American College of Radiology by consensus. We reviewed the clinical and the pathological data to investigate factors affecting cancer detection. We statistically used generalized estimation equations with a logit link to compare the cancer detectability of different imaging modalities. To compare the various factors affecting detection versus nondetection, we used Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact test. Results: The detectability of breast cancer by US (96.5%) or FFDM+CAD+US (100%) was superior to that of FFDM (87.1%) (p=0.019 or p < 0.001, respectively) or FFDM+ CAD (88.3%) (p=0.050 or p < 0.001, respectively). However, cancer detectability was not significantly different between FFDM versus FFDM+CAD (p=1.000) and US alone versus FFDM+CAD+US (p=0.126). The tumor size influenced cancer detectability by all imaging modalities (p<0.050). In FFDM and FFDM+CAD, the nondetecting group consisted of younger patients and patients with a denser breast composition (p<0.050). In breast US, carcinoma in situ was more frequent in the nondetecting group (p=0.014). Conclusion: For breast cancer screening, breast US alone is satisfactory for all age groups, although FFDM+ CAD+US is the perfect screening method. Patient age, breast composition, and pathological tumor size and type may influence cancer detection during screening. Key
引用
收藏
页码:316 / 323
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Detection of Breast Cancer with a Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Murakami, Ryusuke
    Kumita, Shinichiro
    Tani, Hitomi
    Yoshida, Tamiko
    Sugizaki, Kenichi
    Kuwako, Tomoyuki
    Kiriyama, Tomonari
    Hakozaki, Kenta
    Okazaki, Emi
    Yanagihara, Keiko
    Iida, Shinya
    Haga, Shunsuke
    Tsuchiya, Shinichi
    JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2013, 26 (04) : 768 - 773
  • [2] Detection of Breast Cancer with a Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Ryusuke Murakami
    Shinichiro Kumita
    Hitomi Tani
    Tamiko Yoshida
    Kenichi Sugizaki
    Tomoyuki Kuwako
    Tomonari Kiriyama
    Kenta Hakozaki
    Emi Okazaki
    Keiko Yanagihara
    Shinya Iida
    Shunsuke Haga
    Shinichi Tsuchiya
    Journal of Digital Imaging, 2013, 26 : 768 - 773
  • [3] Computer-aided breast cancer detection in screening mammography
    Bick, U
    Giger, ML
    Schmidt, RA
    Nishikawa, RM
    Wolverton, DE
    Doi, K
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY '96, 1996, 1119 : 97 - 103
  • [4] Computer-aided detection for architectural distortion: a comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography
    Li, Yue
    He, Zilong
    Ma, Xiangyuan
    Zeng, Weixiong
    Liu, Jialing
    Xu, Weimin
    Xu, Zeyuan
    Wang, Sina
    Wen, Chanjuan
    Zeng, Hui
    Wu, Jiefang
    Chen, Weiguo
    Lu, Yao
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2022: COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, 2022, 12033
  • [5] Comparison of computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Samala, Ravi K.
    Chan, Heang-Ping
    Lu, Yao
    Hadjiiski, Lubomir
    Wei, Jun
    Helvie, Mark
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2015: COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS, 2015, 9414
  • [6] Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Abnormalities in Digital Mammography
    Bozek, Jelena
    Delac, Kresimir
    Grgic, Mislav
    PROCEEDINGS ELMAR-2008, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2008, : 45 - 52
  • [7] Detection of Breast Cancer with Full-Field Digital Mammography and Computer-Aided Detection
    The, Juliette S.
    Schilling, Kathy J.
    Hoffmeister, Jeffrey W.
    Friedmann, Euvondia
    McGinnis, Ryan
    Holcomb, Richard G.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 192 (02) : 337 - 340
  • [8] Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers
    Sadaf, Arifa
    Crystal, Pavel
    Scaranelo, Anabel
    Helbich, Thomas
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2011, 77 (03) : 457 - 461
  • [9] Computer-aided detection/diagnosis of breast cancer in mammography and ultrasound: a review
    Jalalian, Afsaneh
    Mashohor, Syamsiah B. T.
    Mahmud, Hajjah Rozi
    Saripan, M. Iqbal B.
    Ramli, Abdul Rahman B.
    Karasfi, Babak
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2013, 37 (03) : 420 - 426
  • [10] Computer-aided detection of breast carcinoma in standard mammographic projections with digital mammography
    Destounis, Stamatia
    Hanson, Sarah
    Morgan, Renee
    Murphy, Philip
    Somerville, Patricia
    Seifert, Posy
    Andolina, Valerie
    Arieno, Andrea
    Skolny, Melissa
    Logan-Young, Wende
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 2009, 4 (04) : 331 - 336