Breast Computed Tomography

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Zellweger ◽  
Nicole Berger ◽  
Jann Wieler ◽  
Dania Cioni ◽  
Emanuele Neri ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 1950-1958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessie Q. Xia ◽  
Joseph Y. Lo ◽  
Kai Yang ◽  
Carey E. Floyd ◽  
John M. Boone

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 646-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas D. Prionas ◽  
Shih-Ying Huang ◽  
John M. Boone

Author(s):  
Luigi Rigon ◽  
Federica Tapete ◽  
Diego Dreossi ◽  
Fulvia Arfelli ◽  
Anna Bergamaschi ◽  
...  

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 848
Author(s):  
Matthias Wetzl ◽  
Evelyn Wenkel ◽  
Eva Balbach ◽  
Ebba Dethlefsen ◽  
Arndt Hartmann ◽  
...  

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)3, smooth kernel; Recon2 = voxel size (0.05 mm)3, smooth kernel; Recon3 = voxel size (0.05 mm)3, 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%; p < 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%; p < 0.05). Specificities ranged from 84.7–94.9% for both readers (p > 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: p < 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)3 is used with an equal or better diagnostic confidence for SBCT compared to DBT.


2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 589-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Yi ◽  
Chao-Jen Lai ◽  
Tao Han ◽  
Yuncheng Zhong ◽  
Youtao Shen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document