Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Detectability on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-Dimensional Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts

被引:13
作者
Lee, Soo Hyun [1 ,2 ]
Jang, Mi Jung [1 ]
Kim, Sun Mi [1 ]
Yun, Bo La [1 ]
Rim, Jiwon [1 ]
Chang, Jung Min [3 ]
Kim, Bohyoung [4 ]
Choi, Hye Young [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Seoul Natl Univ Bundang Hosp, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, 82 Gumi Ro,173beon Gil, Seongnam 13620, South Korea
[2] Chungbuk Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Cheongju, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Hankuk Univ Foreign Studies, Div Biomed Engn, Yongin, South Korea
[5] Gyeongsang Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Jinju, South Korea
[6] Gyeongsang Natl Univ, Coll Med, Jinju, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
3D-mammography; DBT; FFDM; Breast neoplasm; 2D MAMMOGRAPHY; POPULATION; PERFORMANCE; VISIBILITY; ACCURACY; BENIGN; DBT;
D O I
10.3348/kjr.2018.0012
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
Objective: To compare digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in the detectability of breast cancers in patients with dense breast tissue, and to determine the influencing factors in the detection of breast cancers using the two techniques. Materials and Methods: Three blinded radiologists independently graded cancer detectability of 300 breast cancers (288 women with dense breasts) on DBT and conventional FFDM images, retrospectively. Hormone status, histologic grade, T stage, and breast cancer subtype were recorded to identify factors affecting cancer detectability. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare cancer detectability by DBT and conventional FFDM. Fisher's exact tests were used to determine differences in cancer characteristics between detectability groups. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine whether the detectability score differed according to cancer characteristics. Results: Forty breast cancers (13.3%) were detectable only with DBT; 191 (63.7%) breast cancers were detected with both FFDM and DBT, and 69 (23%) were not detected with either. Cancer detectability scores were significantly higher for DBT than for conventional FFDM (median score, 6; range, 0-6; p < 0.001). The DBT-only cancer group had more invasive lobular-type breast cancers (22.5%) than the other two groups (i.e., cancer detected on both types of image [both-detected group], 5.2%; cancer not detected on either type of image [both-non-detected group], 7.3%), and less detectability of ductal carcinoma in situ (5% vs. 16.8% [both-detected group] vs. 27.5% [both-non-detected group]). Low-grade cancers were more often detected in the DBT-only group than in the both-detected group (22.5% vs. 10%, p = 0.026). Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2)-negative cancers were more often detected in the DBT-only group than in the both-detected group (92.3% vs. 70.5%, p = 0.004). Cancers surrounded by mostly glandular tissue were detected less often in the DBT only group than in the both-non-detected group (10% vs. 31.9%, p = 0.016). DBT cancer detectability scores were significantly associated with cancer type (p = 0.012), histologic grade (p = 0.013), T and N stage (p = 0.001, p = 0.024), proportion of glandular tissue surrounding lesions (p = 0.013), and lesion type (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Invasive lobular, low-grade, or HER-2-negative cancer is more detectable with DBT than with conventional FFDM in patients with dense breasts, but cancers surrounded by mostly glandular tissue might be missed with both techniques.
引用
收藏
页码:58 / 68
页数:11
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings
    Andersson, Ingvar
    Ikeda, Debra M.
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    Ruschin, Mark
    Svahn, Tony
    Timberg, Pontus
    Tingberg, Anders
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (12) : 2817 - 2825
  • [2] Breast Tomosynthesis: State-of-the-Art and Review of the Literature
    Baker, Jay A.
    Lo, Joseph Y.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2011, 18 (10) : 1298 - 1310
  • [3] Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study
    Bernardi, Daniela
    Macaskill, Petra
    Pellegrini, Marco
    Valentini, Marvi
    Fanto, Carmine
    Ostillio, Livio
    Tuttobene, Paolina
    Luparia, Andrea
    Houssami, Nehmat
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2016, 17 (08) : 1105 - 1113
  • [4] Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study
    Ciatto, Stefano
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Bernardi, Daniela
    Caumo, Francesca
    Pellegrini, Marco
    Brunelli, Silvia
    Tuttobene, Paola
    Bricolo, Paola
    Fanto, Carmine
    Valentini, Marvi
    Montemezzi, Stefania
    Macaskill, Petra
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2013, 14 (07) : 583 - 589
  • [5] 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
  • [6] Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial)
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Tucker, Lorraine
    Gillan, Maureen G. C.
    Willsher, Paula
    Cooke, Julie
    Duncan, Karen A.
    Michell, Michael J.
    Dobson, Hilary M.
    Lim, Yit Yoong
    Suaris, Tamara
    Astley, Susan M.
    Morrish, Oliver
    Young, Kenneth C.
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2015, 277 (03) : 697 - 706
  • [7] Clinical Performance Metrics of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With 2D Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in Community Practice
    Greenberg, Julianne S.
    Javitt, Marcia C.
    Katzen, Jason
    Michael, Sara
    Holland, Agnes E.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 203 (03) : 687 - 693
  • [8] Biologic Profiles of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected Only With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Kim, Jin You
    Kang, Hyun Jung
    Shin, Jong Ki
    Lee, Nam Kyung
    Song, You Seon
    Nam, Kyung Jin
    Choo, Ki Seok
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 209 (06) : 1411 - 1418
  • [9] The most recent breast cancer screening controversy about whether mammographic screening benefits women at any age: Nonsense and nonscience
    Kopans, DB
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 180 (01) : 21 - 26
  • [10] Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography-a side-by-side review of discrepant cases
    Lang, K.
    Andersson, I.
    Zackrisson, S.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2014, 87 (1040)