Cargando…
Comparison between cone-beam breast-CT and full-field digital mammography for microcalcification detection depending on breast density
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of breast density on the diagnostic performance of cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT) in comparison to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the detection of microcalcifications. This retrospective IRB-approved study was conducted between December 20...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10238050/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37266644 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000033900 |
Sumario: | The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of breast density on the diagnostic performance of cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT) in comparison to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the detection of microcalcifications. This retrospective IRB-approved study was conducted between December 2015 and March 2017 and enrolled 171 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions on FFDM and additional CBBCT; 56 of which were ineligible. The inclusion was restricted to 83 women (90 breasts, 90 lesions) with microcalcifications. All lesions underwent histology or were monitored by FFDM and a clinical examination at least 2 years after enrollment. Two breast radiologists independently read each data set twice. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve were compared between the modalities. Thirty-two breasts (35.5%) were grouped as non-dense breasts (American College of Radiology types a/b) and 58 breasts (64.5%) as dense breasts (American College of Radiology types c/d). Histopathological assessment was performed in 61 of 90 breast lesions (32 malignant, 1 high-risk and 28 benign). Area under the curve was larger for FFDM than for CBBCT (P = .085). The sensitivity was significantly higher for FFDM compared to CBBCT (P = .009). The specificity showed no significant differences comparing FFDM (both readers: 0.62) versus CBBCT (reader 1: 0.76, reader 2: 0.60; P = .192). Inter-observer-reliability on BI-RADS readings was almost perfect for FFDM and moderate for CBBCT (κ = 0.84, κ = 0.54, respectively). Intra-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect for both methods and readers. Compared with FFDM, CBBCT demonstrated non-comparable results for microcalcification detection in dense and non-dense breasts. |
---|