Abstract
Abstract
Background
Mammography is the primary imaging modality for diagnosing breast cancer in women more than 40 years of age. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), when supplemented with digital mammography (DM), is useful for increasing the sensitivity and improving BIRADS characterization by removing the overlapping effect. Ultrasonography (US), when combined with the above combination, further increases the sensitivity and diagnostic confidence. Since most of the research regarding tomosynthesis has been in screening settings, we wanted to quantify its role in diagnostic mammography. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of DM alone vs. DM combined with DBT vs. DM plus DBT and ultrasound in diagnosing malignant breast neoplasms with the gold standard being histopathology or cytology.
Results
A prospective study of 1228 breasts undergoing diagnostic or screening mammograms was undertaken at our institute. Patients underwent 2 views DM, single view DBT and US. BIRADS category was updated after each step. Final categorization was made with all three modalities combined and pathological correlation was done for those cases in which suspicious findings were detected, i.e. 256 cases. Diagnosis based on pathology was done for 256 cases out of which 193 (75.4%) were malignant and the rest 63 (24.6%) were benign. The diagnostic accuracy of DM alone was 81.1%. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 87.8%, 60%, 81.3% and 61.1%, respectively. With DM + DBT the diagnostic accuracy was 84.8%. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 92%, 56.5%, 89% and 65%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DM + DBT + US was found to be 85.1% and Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and NPV were 96.3%, 50.7%, 85.7% and 82%, respectively.
Conclusion
The combination of DBT to DM led to higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and PPV. The addition of US to DM and DBT further increased the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy and significantly increased the NPV even in diagnostic mammograms and should be introduced in routine practice for characterizing breast neoplasms.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Reference29 articles.
1. Tiwari PK, Ghosh S, Agrawal VK (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in assessment of breast cancer. Int J Contemp Med Res 4(1):81–83
2. Cancer Statistics [Internet]. India Against Cancer. [cited 2020 Jan 5]. Available from: http://cancerindia.org.in/cancer-statistics/
3. Brown AL, Phillips J, Slanetz PJ, Fein-Zachary V, Venkataraman S, Dialani V et al (2017) Clinical value of mammography in the evaluation of palpable breast lumps in women 30 years old and older. Am J Roentgenol 209(4):935–942
4. Appropriateness Criteria [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jan 5]. Available from: https://acsearch.acr.org/list
5. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, Sebuødegård S, Østerås BH, Gullien R et al (2019) Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Radiology 291(1):23–30
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献