Department of Radiology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic Health System, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 16;14(1):16344. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67332-y.
To explore the diagnostic efficacy of tomosynthesis spot compression (TSC) compared with conventional spot compression (CSC) for ambiguous findings on full-field digital mammography (FFDM). In this retrospective study, 122 patients (including 108 patients with dense breasts) with ambiguous FFDM findings were imaged with both CSC and TSC. Two radiologists independently reviewed the images and evaluated lesions using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Pathology or at least a 1-year follow-up imaging was used as the reference standard. Diagnostic efficacies of CSC and TSC were compared, including area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The mean glandular dose was recorded and compared for TSC and CSC. Of the 122 patients, 63 had benign lesions and 59 had malignant lesions. For Reader 1, the following diagnostic efficacies of TSC were significantly higher than those of CSC: AUC (0.988 vs. 0.906, P = 0.001), accuracy (93.4% vs. 77.8%, P = 0.001), specificity (87.3% vs. 63.5%, P = 0.002), PPV (88.1% vs. 70.5%, P = 0.010), and NPV (100% vs. 90.9%, P = 0.029). For Reader 2, TSC showed higher AUC (0.949 vs. 0.909, P = 0.011) and accuracy (83.6% vs. 71.3%, P = 0.022) than CSC. The mean glandular dose of TSC was higher than that of CSC (1.85 ± 0.53 vs. 1.47 ± 0.58 mGy, P < 0.001) but remained within the safety limit. TSC provides better diagnostic efficacy with a slightly higher but tolerable radiation dose than CSC. Therefore, TSC may be a candidate modality for patients with ambiguous findings on FFDM.
为了探讨断层合成点压缩(TSC)与传统点压缩(CSC)在全数字化乳腺摄影(FFDM)上的可疑发现中的诊断效能。在这项回顾性研究中,122 名(包括 108 名致密乳腺患者)FFDM 可疑患者接受了 CSC 和 TSC 检查。两位放射科医生独立地使用乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)对图像进行了评估。以病理学或至少 1 年的随访影像学检查为参考标准。比较了 CSC 和 TSC 的诊断效能,包括曲线下面积(AUC)、准确性、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。记录并比较了 TSC 和 CSC 的平均腺体剂量。122 名患者中,63 例为良性病变,59 例为恶性病变。对于 Reader1,TSC 的以下诊断效能明显高于 CSC:AUC(0.988 比 0.906,P = 0.001)、准确性(93.4% 比 77.8%,P = 0.001)、特异度(87.3% 比 63.5%,P = 0.002)、PPV(88.1% 比 70.5%,P = 0.010)和 NPV(100% 比 90.9%,P = 0.029)。对于 Reader2,TSC 显示 AUC(0.949 比 0.909,P = 0.011)和准确性(83.6% 比 71.3%,P = 0.022)均高于 CSC。TSC 的平均腺体剂量高于 CSC(1.85±0.53 比 1.47±0.58 mGy,P < 0.001),但仍在安全范围内。与 CSC 相比,TSC 提供了更好的诊断效能,辐射剂量略高,但可接受。因此,TSC 可能是 FFDM 可疑发现患者的一种候选方法。