Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility.
Comparative analysis between synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for breast cancer detection and visibility.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejro.2019.12.001
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Kumita S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murakami R;Uchiyama N;Tani H;Yoshida T;Kumita S
来自DBT数据集的2D合成乳腺X射线摄影图像不需要额外的辐射暴露。我们比较了2DSM和FFDM在乳腺癌检测和可见性方面的观察者性能。2DSM和FFDM图像检测乳腺癌的诊断性能相当。2DSM可以消除在基于DBT的成像期间对附加FFDM的需要。比较合成乳腺X射线摄影（2DSM）和全视野数字乳腺X射线摄影（FFDM）在乳腺癌检测和可见性方面的观察者性能。对接受FFDM和数字乳腺断层合成摄影（DBT）的136例经组织病理学证实的乳腺癌患者进行了回顾性分析。根据DBT数据重建2DSM图像，审查并评价2DSM和FFDM图像的乳腺X线摄影特征、恶性概率（BI-RADS分类）和病变显著性。未审查DBT图像。使用McNemar检验分析2DSM和FFDM图像之间癌症检出率的统计学差异，使用Cohen kappa检验评估2DSM和FFDM之间BI-RADS评估的一致性，使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较可见性评分。2DSM和FFDM图像的平均癌症检出率分别为84.6%和87.8%。在亚组分析中，乳腺密度、肿瘤大小和钙化的差异无统计学意义。BI-RADS分类的2DSM和FFDM图像之间的一致性被评为良好，Cohen k系数为0.78 ± 0.05。两种图像模式的可见性评分对于所有病变的组合是相似的;然而，2DSM在钙化癌（p < 0.01）和致密乳腺组织（p < 0.01）中的可见性评分显著更好。对于检测乳腺癌，2DSM和FFDM图像的诊断性能相当，并且由于图像重建方法的进步，2DSM可能在基于DBT的成像期间消除对额外FFDM的需要。
2D synthetic mammography images from the DBT dataset do not require additional radiation exposure. We compare observer performance between 2DSM and FFDM for breast cancer detection and visibility. Diagnostic performances of 2DSM and FFDM images were comparable for detecting breast cancers. 2DSM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging. To compare observer performance between synthetic mammography (2DSM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for breast cancer detection and visibility. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 136 histopathologically proven cases of breast cancer in patients who underwent FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). 2DSM images were reconstructed from DBT data, and 2DSM and FFDM images were reviewed and evaluated for mammographic features, probability of malignancy (BI-RADS classification), and lesion conspicuity. DBT images were not reviewed. Statistical differences in cancer detection rates between 2DSM and FFDM images were analyzed using the McNemar test, agreement on BI-RADS assessment between 2DSM and FFDM was assessed using Cohen’s kappa test, and the Wilcoxon’s signed rank test was used to compare visibility scores. Mean cancer detection rates with 2DSM and FFDM images were 84.6 % and 87.8 %, respectively. In subgroup analyses, differences in breast density, tumor size, and presence of calcifications were not statistically significant. Agreement between 2DSM and FFDM images for BI-RADS classification was graded as good with Cohen’s k-coefficient of 0.78 ± 0.05. Visibility scores in both modalities of images were similar for all lesions combined; however, 2DSM had significantly better visibility scores for calcified cancers (p < 0.01), and in dense breast tissue (p < 0.01). Diagnostic performances of 2DSM and FFDM images were comparable for detecting breast cancers, and it is possible that 2DSM may eliminate the need for additional FFDM during DBT-based imaging due to advances in image reconstruction methods.