European journal of radiology · 2022
A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ezeana Chika F, Puppala Mamta, Wang Lin, Chang Jenny C, Wong Stephen T C
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Probability of malignancy for BI-RADS 4-designated breast lesions ranges from 2% to 95%, contributing to high false-positive biopsy rates. We compare clinical performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography (2D) among our BI-RADS 4 population without prior history of breast cancer.
METHODS: We extracted retrospective data i.e., clinical, mammogram reports, and biopsy data, from electronic medical records across Houston Methodist's nine hospitals for patients who underwent diagnostic examinations using both modalities (02/01/2015 - 09/30/2020). 2D and DBT cohorts were not intra-individual matched, and there was no direct mammogram evaluation. Using Student's t test, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-squared test, we evaluated the data to determine statistical significance of differences between modalities in BI-RADS 4 cases. We calculated adjusted odds-ratio between modalities for cancer detection rate (CDR) and biopsy-derived positive predictive value (PPV3).
RESULTS: There were 6,356 encounters (6,020 patients) in 2D and 5,896 encounters (5,637 patients) in DBT assessed as BI-RADS 4. Using Fisher's exact test, DBT mammography cases were significantly assessed as BI-RADS 4 5.66% more often than those undergoing 2D mammography, P = 0.0046 (1.0566 95% CI: 1.0169-1.0977). The CDRs were 112.65 (2D) and 120.76 (DBT), adjusted odds-ratio: 1.04 (0.93, 1.16)), P = 0.5029, while PPV3 were 14.41% (2D) and 15.99% (DBT), adjusted odds-ratio: 1.09 (0.97, 1.22), P = 0.1483; both logistic regression-adjusted for all other factors.
CONCLUSION: DBT did not achieve better performance and sensitivity in assigning BI-RADS 4 cases compared with 2D, showed no significant advantage in CDR and PPV3, and does not reduce false-positive biopsies among BI-RADS 4-assessed patients.
METHODS: We extracted retrospective data i.e., clinical, mammogram reports, and biopsy data, from electronic medical records across Houston Methodist's nine hospitals for patients who underwent diagnostic examinations using both modalities (02/01/2015 - 09/30/2020). 2D and DBT cohorts were not intra-individual matched, and there was no direct mammogram evaluation. Using Student's t test, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-squared test, we evaluated the data to determine statistical significance of differences between modalities in BI-RADS 4 cases. We calculated adjusted odds-ratio between modalities for cancer detection rate (CDR) and biopsy-derived positive predictive value (PPV3).
RESULTS: There were 6,356 encounters (6,020 patients) in 2D and 5,896 encounters (5,637 patients) in DBT assessed as BI-RADS 4. Using Fisher's exact test, DBT mammography cases were significantly assessed as BI-RADS 4 5.66% more often than those undergoing 2D mammography, P = 0.0046 (1.0566 95% CI: 1.0169-1.0977). The CDRs were 112.65 (2D) and 120.76 (DBT), adjusted odds-ratio: 1.04 (0.93, 1.16)), P = 0.5029, while PPV3 were 14.41% (2D) and 15.99% (DBT), adjusted odds-ratio: 1.09 (0.97, 1.22), P = 0.1483; both logistic regression-adjusted for all other factors.
CONCLUSION: DBT did not achieve better performance and sensitivity in assigning BI-RADS 4 cases compared with 2D, showed no significant advantage in CDR and PPV3, and does not reduce false-positive biopsies among BI-RADS 4-assessed patients.