Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sona Ajit Chikarmane ◽  
Laila R. Cochon ◽  
Ramin Khorasani ◽  
Sonia Sahu ◽  
Catherine S. Giess
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Personal History ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
History Of

scholarly journals Initial Experience with Combination Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Full Field Digital Mammography or Full Field Digital Mammography Alone in the Screening Environment

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stamatia Destounis ◽  
Andrea Arieno ◽  
Renee Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Screening Mammography ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
History Of

Objectives: Initial review of patients undergoing screening mammography imaged with a combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus full field digital mammography (FFDM) compared with FFDM alone. Materials and Methods: From June 2011 to December 2011, all patients presenting for routine screening mammography were offered a combination DBT plus FFDM exam. Under institutional review board approval, we reviewed 524 patients who opted for combination DBT plus FFDM and selected a sample group of 524 FFDM screening exams from the same time period for a comparative analysis. The χ2 (Chi-square) test was used to compare recall rates, breast density, personal history of breast cancer, and family history of breast cancer between the two groups. Results: Recall rate for FFDM, 11.45%, was significantly higher (P < 0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (4.20%). The biopsy rate in the FFDM group was 2.29% (12/524), with a cancer detection rate of 0.38% (2/524, or 3.8 per 1000) and positive predictive value (PPV) of 16.7% (2/12). The biopsy rate for the DBT plus FFDM group was 1.14% (n = 6/524), with a cancer detection rate 0.57% (n = 3/524, or 5.7 per 1000) and PPV of 50.0% (n = 3/6). Personal history of breast cancer in the FFDM group was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than in the combination DBT plus FFDM group; 2.5% and 5.7%, respectively. A significant difference in family history of breast cancer (P < 0.0001) was found, with a higher rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group (36.0% vs. 53.8%). There was a significant difference between the combination DBT plus FFDM group and FFDM alone group, when comparing breast density (P < 0.0147, 61.64% vs. 54.20% dense breasts, respectively) with a higher rate of dense breasts in the DBT plus FFDM group. In follow-up, one cancer was detected within one year of normal screening mammogram in the combination DBT plus FFDM group. Conclusion: Our initial experience found the recall rate in the combination DBT plus FFDM group was significantly lower than in the FFDM alone group, despite the fact that the combination DBT plus FFDM group had additional risk factors.

Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007–2016

Radiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 204581
Author(s):  
Janie M. Lee ◽  
Laura E. Ichikawa ◽  
Karen J. Wernli ◽  
Erin Bowles ◽  
Jennifer M. Specht ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Personal History ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
History Of

DETECTION OF BREAST CANCERS REPRESENTED AS ARCHITECTURAL DISTORTION: A COMPARISON OF FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (7) ◽  
pp. 1674-1679
Author(s):  
Tetiana M. Babkina ◽  
Andrii V. Gurando ◽  
Tetiana M. Kozarenko ◽  
Viacheslav R. Gurando ◽  
Vadim V. Telniy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Architectural Distortion ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
History Of

The aim: The aim of our study was to determine if digital breast tomosynthesis improves breast cancer detection associated with architectural distortion in comparison with full-field digital mammography in the absence of appropriate history of trauma or surgery. Materials and methods: The overall rate of breast cancer involvement for the 34 patients with architectural distortion was 15 cases (44,1%) (invasive breast cancers, n=12 (36,4%); ductal cancer in situ, n= 3 (8,8%)) other findings associated with architectural distortion were high-risk lesions and benign findings (radial scar, n=5 (14,7%); sclerosing adenosis, n=9 (26,5%); typical lobular hyperplasia, n=3 (8,8%); typical ductal hyperplasia, n=2 cases (5,9%)). Results: Overall of 17/34 (50.0%) architectural distortions were identified at digital breast tomosynthesis that were missed at full-field digital mammography what was statistically significant difference ([95% CI, 2.56–7.45]; p=0.00001). Analysis of the results showed that sensitivity of full-field digital mammography for digital breast tomosynthesis detected breast cancers associated with architectural distortion was 53.3% [95% CI, 26.59% to 78.73%] and specificity was 52.63% [95% CI, 28.86% to 75.55%]. Conclusions: Our study suggests that digital breast tomosynthesis detects more breast cancers represented as architectural distortion which are occult on full-field digital mammography. Presence of microcalcifications within architectural distortion, in the absence of appropriate history of trauma or surgery, has a high likelihood of malignancy and obligatorily requires biopsy.

Assessment of extent of breast cancer: Comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography

2013 ◽  
Vol 68 (12) ◽  
pp. 1254-1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.S. Mun ◽  
H.H. Kim ◽  
H.J. Shin ◽  
J.H. Cha ◽  
P.L. Ruppel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document