Wetzl Matthias, Wenkel Evelyn, Balbach Eva, Dethlefsen Ebba, Hartmann Arndt, Emons Julius, Kuhl Christiane, Beckmann Matthias W, Uder Michael, Ohlmeyer Sabine
Department of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 May 9;11(5):848. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11050848.
The primary objective of the study was to compare a spiral breast computed tomography system (SBCT) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for the detection of microcalcifications (MCs) in breast specimens. The secondary objective was to compare various reconstruction modes in SBCT. In total, 54 breast biopsy specimens were examined with mammography as a standard reference, with DBT, and with a dedicated SBCT containing a photon-counting detector. Three different reconstruction modes were applied for SBCT datasets (Recon1 = voxel size (0.15 mm), smooth kernel; Recon2 = voxel size (0.05 mm), smooth kernel; Recon3 = voxel size (0.05 mm), sharp kernel). Sensitivity and specificity of DBT and SBCT for the detection of suspicious MCs were analyzed, and the McNemar test was used for comparisons. Diagnostic confidence of the two readers (Likert Scale 1 = not confident; 5 = completely confident) was analyzed with ANOVA. Regarding detection of MCs, reader 1 had a higher sensitivity for DBT (94.3%) and Recon2 (94.9%) compared to Recon1 (88.5%; < 0.05), while sensitivity for Recon3 was 92.4%. Respectively, reader 2 had a higher sensitivity for DBT (93.0%), Recon2 (92.4%), and Recon3 (93.0%) compared to Recon1 (86.0%; < 0.05). Specificities ranged from 84.7-94.9% for both readers ( > 0.05). The diagnostic confidence of reader 1 was better with SBCT than with DBT (DBT 4.48 ± 0.88, Recon1 4.77 ± 0.66, Recon2 4.89 ± 0.44, and Recon3 4.75 ± 0.72; DBT vs. Recon1/2/3: < 0.05), while reader 2 found no differences. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of MCs in breast specimens is equal for DBT and SBCT when a small voxel size of (0.05 mm) is used with an equal or better diagnostic confidence for SBCT compared to DBT.
本研究的主要目的是比较螺旋乳腺计算机断层扫描系统(SBCT)与数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)在乳腺标本中检测微钙化(MCs)的能力。次要目的是比较SBCT中的各种重建模式。总共对54份乳腺活检标本进行了检查,以乳腺X线摄影作为标准参考,同时使用DBT以及配备光子计数探测器的专用SBCT进行检查。对SBCT数据集应用了三种不同的重建模式(Recon1 = 体素大小(0.15毫米),平滑核;Recon2 = 体素大小(0.05毫米),平滑核;Recon3 = 体素大小(0.05毫米),锐利核)。分析了DBT和SBCT检测可疑MCs的敏感性和特异性,并使用McNemar检验进行比较。使用方差分析分析两位读者的诊断信心(李克特量表1 = 不自信;5 = 完全自信)。关于MCs的检测,与Recon1(88.5%;<0.05)相比,读者1对DBT(94.3%)和Recon2(94.9%)的敏感性更高,而Recon3的敏感性为92.4%。相比之下,读者2对DBT(93.0%)、Recon2(92.4%)和Recon3(93.0%)的敏感性高于Recon1(86.0%;<0.05)。两位读者的特异性范围均为84.7 - 94.9%(>0.05)。读者1对SBCT的诊断信心优于DBT(DBT为4.48±0.88,Recon1为4.77±0.66,Recon2为4.89±0.44,Recon3为4.75±0.72;DBT与Recon1/2/3比较:<0.05),而读者2未发现差异。当使用(0.05毫米)的小体素大小且SBCT的诊断信心与DBT相当或更好时,DBT和SBCT在乳腺标本中检测MCs的敏感性和特异性相等。