Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy, Radiology Institute, University of Turin, A. O. U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Presidio Ospedaliero Molinette, Via Genova 3, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Dec;166(3):765-773. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4458-3. Epub 2017 Aug 17.
To compare the interpretive performance of synthetic mammography (SM), reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in a diagnostic setting, covering different conditions of breast density and mammographic signs.
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 231 patients, who underwent FFDM and DBT (from which SM images were reconstructed) between September 2014-September 2015. The study included 250 suspicious breast lesions, all biopsy proven: 148 (59.2%) malignant and 13 (5.2%) high-risk lesions were confirmed by surgery, 89 (35.6%) benign lesions had radiological follow-up. Two breast radiologists, blinded to histology, independently reviewed all cases. Readings were performed with SM alone, then with FFDM, collecting data on: probability of malignancy for each finding, lesion conspicuity, mammographic features and dimensions of detected lesions.
Agreement between readers was good for BI-RADS classification (Cohen's k-coefficient = 0.93 ± 0.02) and for lesion dimension (Wilcoxon's p = 0.76). Visibility scores assigned to SM and FFDM for each lesion were similar for non-dense and dense breasts, however, there were significant differences (p = 0.0009) in distribution of mammographic features subgroups. SM and FFDM had similar sensitivities in non-dense (respectively 94 vs. 91%) and dense breasts (88 vs. 80%) and for all mammographic signs (93 vs. 87% for asymmetric densities, 96 vs. 75% for distortion, 92 vs. 85% for microcalcifications, and both 94% for masses). Based on all data, there was a significant difference in sensitivity for SM (92%) vs. FFDM (87%), p = 0.02, whereas the two modalities yielded similar results for specificity (SM: 60%, FFDM: 62%, p = 0.21).
SM alone showed similar interpretive performance to FFDM, confirming its potential role as an alternative to FFDM in women having tomosynthesis, with the added advantage of halving the patient's dose exposure.
比较在诊断环境中,从数字乳腺断层合成(SM)重建的合成乳房 X 光摄影术(DBT)与全视野数字化乳腺 X 光摄影术(FFDM)的解释性能,涵盖不同的乳腺密度和乳房 X 光摄影术征象条件。
对 2014 年 9 月至 2015 年 9 月间接受 FFDM 和 DBT(从中重建 SM 图像)的 231 名患者进行了回顾性分析。该研究包括 250 个可疑的乳房病变,所有病变均经活检证实:148 个(59.2%)恶性病变和 13 个(5.2%)高危病变经手术证实,89 个(35.6%)良性病变进行了影像学随访。两名乳腺放射科医生对所有病例均进行了组织学盲法独立阅片。阅读时单独使用 SM 进行,然后使用 FFDM 进行,收集以下数据:每个发现的恶性肿瘤概率、病变的明显程度、乳房 X 光摄影术特征和检测到的病变的尺寸。
读者对 BI-RADS 分类的一致性良好(Cohen's k 系数=0.93±0.02),对病变尺寸的一致性也很好(Wilcoxon 的 p=0.76)。对非致密和致密乳房的 SM 和 FFDM 为每个病变分配的可见度评分相似,然而,在亚组的乳房 X 光摄影术特征分布上存在显著差异(p=0.0009)。SM 和 FFDM 在非致密(分别为 94%和 91%)和致密乳房(分别为 88%和 80%)以及所有乳房 X 光摄影术征象(不对称密度为 93%和 87%,变形为 96%和 75%,微钙化分别为 92%和 85%,肿块均为 94%)中具有相似的灵敏度。基于所有数据,SM(92%)与 FFDM(87%)的灵敏度存在显著差异(p=0.02),而两种方法在特异性方面的结果相似(SM:60%,FFDM:62%,p=0.21)。
SM 单独使用时与 FFDM 的解释性能相似,证实了其在接受断层摄影术的女性中替代 FFDM 的潜力,同时还具有将患者剂量暴露减半的额外优势。