Suppr超能文献

使用单视图数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)和超声与额外视图及超声用于评估筛查发现的异常情况:德国多阅片者研究

Use of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound vs. additional views and ultrasound for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities: German multi-reader study.

作者信息

Heywang-Köbrunner Sylvia H, Hacker Astrid, Jänsch Alexander, Kates Ronald, Wulz-Horber Sabina

机构信息

1 National Reference Centre Mammography Munich, Munich, Germany.

2 Brustdiagnostik München, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

Acta Radiol. 2018 Jul;59(7):782-788. doi: 10.1177/0284185117732600. Epub 2017 Sep 20.

Abstract

Background Data on the value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for further assessment of screen-detected lesions are still limited. Purpose To compare screening mammography, single-view DBT and ultrasound-information (TS) vs. screening mammography, additional views and ultrasound-information (AV) for assessment of screen-detected abnormalities. Material and Methods The use of wide-angle DBT for screen-detected, soft-tissue abnormalities requiring additional views was investigated: 241 cases (206 benign and 35 malignant lesions), verified by histology or two-year follow-up, were read by ten readers as TS and as AV sets, yielding 2410 diagnoses for each set. Readings were randomly sequenced. Results The mean interval between readings was nine weeks (random sequence). Evaluation was breast-based. Overall, in terms of area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC; varying degree of suspicion cutoff), TS and AV readings showed similar performance: for TS, AUC was 0.889 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.871-0.907) and for AV, AUC was 0.903 (95% CI = 0.886-0.921). TS readings had slightly higher sensitivity than AV readings (96.9% vs. 95.4%) but lower specificity (50% vs. 58.1%) and more variations between reader performance; absolute false negatives (FN) were reduced in 8/16 readers, equal in 5/16, and increased in only 3/16. Conclusion This study broadly confirms previous data showing equivalence of DBT to AV. However, bias against TS may have occurred since the region of interest was not indicated in the TS set as compared to its obvious identification on the AV set by the selected spot views. A key finding is that reader experience with DBT may be more important than so far reported.

摘要

背景

关于数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)在进一步评估筛查发现的病变方面的价值的数据仍然有限。目的:比较筛查乳腺X线摄影、单视图DBT和超声信息(TS)与筛查乳腺X线摄影、附加视图和超声信息(AV)对筛查发现的异常进行评估的情况。材料与方法:研究了使用广角DBT对筛查发现的需要附加视图的软组织异常情况:241例病例(206例良性病变和35例恶性病变),经组织学或两年随访证实,由十位阅片者分别作为TS组和AV组进行阅片,每组产生2410个诊断结果。阅片顺序随机。结果:阅片之间的平均间隔为9周(随机顺序)。评估以乳腺为基础。总体而言,就受试者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC;不同程度的可疑性截断值)而言,TS组和AV组阅片表现相似:TS组的AUC为0.889(95%置信区间[CI]=0.871-0.907),AV组的AUC为0.903(95%CI=0.886-0.921)。TS组阅片的敏感性略高于AV组阅片(96.9%对95.4%),但特异性较低(50%对58.1%),且阅片者之间的表现差异更大;绝对假阴性(FN)在16位阅片者中有8位减少,5位相等,仅3位增加。结论:本研究大致证实了先前的数据,表明DBT与AV相当。然而,可能存在对TS的偏见,因为与AV组通过选定的点片明显识别感兴趣区域相比,TS组未指明感兴趣区域。一个关键发现是,阅片者对DBT的经验可能比迄今报道的更为重要。

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