Comparison of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM)

Transcription

1 Comparison of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM) Poster No.: C-2258 Congress: ECR 2012 Type: Scientific Exhibit Authors: G. Saguatti, P. Mainoldi, R. Stamati, D. Focker, A. Tafà, P. Bruscoli; Bologna/IT Keywords: DOI: Neoplasia, Experimental investigations, Digital radiography, Breast /ecr2012/C-2258 Any information contained in this pdf file is automatically generated from digital material submitted to EPOS by third parties in the form of scientific presentations. References to any names, marks, products, or services of third parties or hypertext links to thirdparty sites or information are provided solely as a convenience to you and do not in any way constitute or imply ECR's endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the third party, information, product or service. ECR is not responsible for the content of these pages and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy of material in this file. As per copyright regulations, any unauthorised use of the material or parts thereof as well as commercial reproduction or multiple distribution by any traditional or electronically based reproduction/publication method ist strictly prohibited. You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold ECR harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from or related to your use of these pages. Please note: Links to movies, ppt slideshows and any other multimedia files are not available in the pdf version of presentations. Page 1 of 10

2 Purpose To compare one-view DBT and two-view FFDM in detection of breast lesion using histology as reference standard. Methods and Materials Forty-six patients (aged 59±11 years) with at least one breast lesion detected at screening (n=10) or diagnostic (n=36) FFDM underwent mediolateral oblique DBT (Giotto Tomo, IMS, Bologna, Italy). An independent dedicated breast radiologist reviewed all examinations (time interval at least 30 days). For each lesion, a BIRADS score was assigned both at FFDM and DBT. The BIRADS score distributions of FFDM and DBT were compared using the Wilcoxon test and the Cohen k coefficient. Considering BIRADS 1 and 2 as negative and BIRADS 4 and 5 as positive, sensitivity and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using histology of biopsied lesions as reference standard. Results A total of 54 lesions were detected (14 of them being invasive). Considering the five BIRADS score system (B1,B2,B3,B4,B5), the distribution at FFDM was (10,3,9,20,12), while that of DBT was (4,4,15,14,17). The BIRADS distribution of DBT was significantly shifted towards more clinically relevant scores respect the BIRADS of FFDM (p=0.048), corresponding to a poor between-technique agreement (Cohen k=0.351). Sensitivity of FFDM was 29/29 (100%; CI %), that of DBT was 28/29 (97%; %). In one patient DBT showed a bilateral tumor with only one lesion detected at FFDM; similarly, in another case, DBT showed a multifocal lesion with a focal lesion detected at FFDM. Images for this section: Page 2 of 10

3 Page 3 of 10

4 Fig. 1: Benign mass Page 4 of 10

5 Page 5 of 10

6 Fig. 2: malignant distortion Page 6 of 10

7 Page 7 of 10

8 Fig. 3: Suspect mass Page 8 of 10

9 Conclusion This preliminary study shows a diagnostic performance of one-view DBT at least equivalent to that of two-view FFDM. References Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, Svahn T. Timberg P, Tinberg A, Andersson I. Acta radiol.2010,april Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Gennaro G, Toledano A, Di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, Pescarini L, Polico I, Proietti A, Toffoli A, Muzzio PC. Eur radiol 2010 july Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammography spot view for mass caractherization. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, Chan HP, Carson PL, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA Radiology 2011 oct 13 Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side by side review Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganot MA, SumKin JH, Thuley ML, Gur D. AJR American J Roentgenol August Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital Mammography: a comparison. Page 9 of 10

10 Spangler ML, ZuleY ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, GAnott MA, Hakim C, Perrin R, Chough DM, Shah R, Gur D. AJR American J Roentgenol Mar. One to one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Tagliafico A. Astengo D. Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescignito G, Monetti F, Calabrese M. European Radiology 2011 Oct 11 One to one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Tagliafico A. Astengo D. Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescignito G, Monetti F, Calabrese M. European Radiology 2011 Oct 11 Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R. Breast Journal Nov. Personal Information Page 10 of 10