Suppr超能文献

数字化乳腺断层融合超声与数字化乳腺钼靶联合超声在致密型乳腺女性乳腺癌筛查中的应用比较。

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Ultrasound Versus Digital Mammography Plus Ultrasound for Screening Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Korean J Radiol. 2023 Apr;24(4):274-283. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2022.0649.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40-78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8-19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726; 95% CI: 5.7-15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively; = 0.889). DBT cohort showed a higher AIR than the DM cohort (31.6% [273 of 863; 95% CI: 28.5%-34.9%] vs. 22.4% [387 of 1726; 95% CI: 20.5%-24.5%]; < 0.001). The sensitivity for both cohorts was 100%. In women with negative findings on DBT or DM, supplemental US yielded similar CDRs in both DBT and DM cohorts (4.0 vs. 3.3 per 1000 examinations, respectively; = 0.803) and higher AIR in the DBT cohort (24.8% [188 of 758; 95% CI: 21.8%-28.0%] vs. 16.9% [257 of 1516; 95% CI: 15.1%-18.9%; < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

DBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.

摘要

目的

比较乳腺致密的女性行数字乳腺断层摄影术(DBT)联合超声(US)筛查与数字乳腺钼靶(DM)联合 US 筛查的结果。

材料与方法

回顾性数据库检索了 2016 年 6 月至 2019 年 7 月期间同时行 DBT 或 DM 联合全乳 US 筛查的连续无症状乳腺致密的女性。根据乳腺密度、年龄、绝经状态、激素替代疗法和乳腺癌家族史,对行 DBT+US(DBT 组)和 DM+US(DM 组)的女性进行 1:2 比例匹配。比较每 1000 例筛查检查的癌症检出率(CDR)、异常解读率(AIR)、敏感性和特异性。

结果

DBT 组共 863 例患者与 DM 组 1726 例患者(中位年龄 53 岁;四分位间距 40-78 岁)相匹配,共发现 26 例乳腺癌(DBT 组 9 例,DM 组 17 例)。DBT 组和 DM 组的 CDR 相似(每 1000 例分别为 10.4[863 例中 9 例;95%置信区间{CI}:4.8-19.7]和 9.8[1726 例中 17 例;95%CI:5.7-15.7];=0.889)。DBT 组的 AIR 高于 DM 组(31.6%[863 例中 273 例;95%CI:28.5%-34.9%]和 22.4%[1726 例中 387 例;95%CI:20.5%-24.5%];<0.001)。两组的敏感性均为 100%。在 DBT 或 DM 检查结果为阴性的女性中,补充 US 在 DBT 和 DM 组的 CDR 相似(分别为 4.0 和 3.3 例/1000 例;=0.803),而 DBT 组的 AIR 更高(24.8%[758 例中 188 例;95%CI:21.8%-28.0%]和 16.9%[1516 例中 257 例;95%CI:15.1%-18.9%];<0.001)。

结论

在乳腺致密的女性中,DBT 联合 US 筛查的 CDR 与 DM 联合 US 筛查相似,但特异性低于 DM 联合 US 筛查。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/982c/10067692/b7f08c54a991/kjr-24-274-g001.jpg

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