Prospective Comparison of Synthesized Mammography with DBT and Full-Field Digital Mammography with DBT Uncovers Recall Disagreements That may Impact Cancer Detection.

Autor:	Huang ML; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030. Electronic address: MLHuang@mdanderson.org., Hess K; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas., Ma J; Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas., Santiago L; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Scoggins ME; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Arribas E; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Adrada BE; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Le-Petross HT; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Leung JWT; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Yang W; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030., Geiser W; Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas., Candelaria RP; Department of Breast Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe, Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Academic radiology [Acad Radiol] 2022 Jul; Vol. 29 (7), pp. 1039-1045. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Sep 15.
DOI:	10.1016/j.acra.2021.08.004
Abstrakt:	Rationale and Objectives: Synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (SM+DBT) and full-field digital mammography with DBT were prospectively evaluated for recall rate (RR), cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value 1 (PPV1), lesion recall differences, and disagreements in recall for additional imaging. Materials and Methods: From December 15, 2015 to January 15, 2017, after informed consent was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant study, each enrolled patient's SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT were interpreted sequentially by one of eight radiologists. RR, CDR, PPV1, and imaging findings (asymmetry, focal asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, and calcifications) recalled were reviewed. Results: For SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT in 1022 patients, RR was 7.3% and 7.9% (SM+DBT vs. FFDM+DBT: diff= -0.6%; 90% CI= -1.4%, 0.1%); CDR was 6.8 and 7.8 per 1000 (SM+DBT vs. FFDM+DBT: diff= -1.0, 95% CI= -5.5, 2.8, p = 0.317); PPV1 was 9.3% and 9.9% (relative positive predictive value for SM+DBT vs. FFDM+DBT: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.73-1.22, p = 0.669). FFDM+DBT detected eight cancers; SM+DBT detected seven (missed 1 cancer with calcifications). SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT disagreed on patient recall for additional imaging in 19 patients, with majority (68%, 13/19 patients) in the recall of patients for calcifications. For calcifications, SM+DBT recalled six patients that FFDM+DBT did not recall, and FFDM+DBT recalled seven patients that SM+DBT did not recall, even though the total number of calcifications finding recalled was similar overall for both SM+DBT and FFDM+DBT. Conclusion: Disagreement in recall of patients for calcifications may impact cancer detection by SM+DBT, warranting further investigation. (Copyright © 2021 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu