Suppr超能文献

数字乳腺断层合成与乳腺点片对于肿块特征的描述具有可比性。

Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, SPC 5326, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

出版信息

Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):61-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101763. Epub 2011 Oct 13.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine if digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) performs comparably to mammographic spot views (MSVs) in characterizing breast masses as benign or malignant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant reader study obtained informed consent from all subjects. Four blinded Mammography Quality Standards Act-certified academic radiologists individually evaluated DBT images and MSVs of 67 masses (30 malignant, 37 benign) in 67 women (age range, 34-88 years). Images were viewed in random order at separate counterbalanced sessions and were rated for visibility (10-point scale), likelihood of malignancy (12-point scale), and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Differences in mass visibility were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test. Reader performance was measured by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (A(z)) and partial area index above a sensitivity threshold of 0.90 (A(z)(0.90)) by using likelihood of malignancy ratings. Masses categorized as BI-RADS 4 or 5 were compared with histopathologic analysis to determine true-positive results for each modality.

RESULTS

Mean mass visibility ratings were slightly better with DBT (range, 3.2-4.4) than with MSV (range, 3.8-4.8) for all four readers, with one reader's improvement achieving statistical significance (P = .001). The A(z) ranged 0.89-0.93 for DBT and 0.88-0.93 for MSV (P ≥ .23). The A(z)((0.90)) ranged 0.36-0.52 for DBT and 0.25-0.40 for MSV (P ≥ .20). The readers characterized seven additional malignant masses as BI-RADS 4 or 5 with DBT than with MSV, at a cost of five false-positive biopsy recommendations, with a mean of 1.8 true-positive (range, 0-3) and 1.3 false-positive (range, -1 to 4) assessments per reader.

CONCLUSION

In this small study, mass characterization in terms of visibility ratings, reader performance, and BI-RADS assessment with DBT was similar to that with MSVs. Preliminary findings suggest that MSV might not be necessary for mass characterization when performing DBT.

摘要

目的

确定数字乳腺断层摄影术(DBT)在对乳腺肿块进行良性或恶性特征描述方面是否与乳腺点片摄影术(MSV)相当。

材料与方法

本研究获得了机构审查委员会(IRB)批准和 HIPAA 合规性认证,所有受试者均签署了知情同意书。四位经过乳腺影像质量标准法案(Mammography Quality Standards Act)认证的盲法学术放射科医生分别评估了 67 名女性(年龄 34-88 岁)中 67 个肿块(30 个恶性,37 个良性)的 DBT 图像和 MSV。图像以随机顺序在单独的平衡会议中查看,并根据可视性(10 分制)、恶性可能性(12 分制)和乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)分类进行评分。使用 Wilcoxon 配对符号秩检验分析肿块可视性差异。通过使用恶性可能性评分计算接收器工作特征曲线下面积(A(z))和高于灵敏度阈值 0.90 的部分面积指数(A(z)(0.90))来衡量读者的性能。将 BI-RADS 4 或 5 级的肿块与组织病理学分析进行比较,以确定每种模态的真阳性结果。

结果

所有四位读者的平均肿块可视性评分均略高于 DBT(范围,3.2-4.4),而低于 MSV(范围,3.8-4.8),其中一位读者的改善具有统计学意义(P =.001)。DBT 的 A(z)范围为 0.89-0.93,MSV 的 A(z)范围为 0.88-0.93(P ≥.23)。DBT 的 A(z)(0.90)范围为 0.36-0.52,MSV 的 A(z)(0.90)范围为 0.25-0.40(P ≥.20)。与 MSV 相比,四位读者使用 DBT 额外将七例恶性肿块归类为 BI-RADS 4 或 5 级,代价是五次假阳性活检推荐,每位读者平均有 1.8 例真阳性(范围,0-3)和 1.3 例假阳性(范围,-1 至 4)评估。

结论

在这项小型研究中,DBT 对肿块可视性评分、读者表现和 BI-RADS 评估的特征描述与 MSV 相似。初步研究结果表明,在进行 DBT 时,MSV 可能不是肿块特征描述所必需的。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

10
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.数字乳腺断层合成:概念与临床实践。
Radiology. 2019 Jul;292(1):1-14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019180760. Epub 2019 May 14.

本文引用的文献

5
Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results.乳腺断层合成在临床实践中的初步结果。
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jan;20(1):16-24. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1523-2. Epub 2009 Aug 6.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验