Detection and Classification of Calcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2D Digital Mammography: A Comparison
Detection and Classification of Calcifications on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and 2D Digital Mammography: A Comparison
复制标题
DOI：
10.2214/ajr.10.4656
复制
发表时间：
2011-02-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Gur, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Spangler, M. Lee;Zuley, Margarita L.;Gur, David
目标。本文的目的是比较数字乳腺断层成像和全场数字乳腺摄影(FFDM)对钙化的发现和定性的能力。材料和方法。100例配对检查采用FFDM术和数字乳房断层成形术。在一项交叉的多读者多模式观察者绩效研究中，五位放射科医生对20例经活检证实的癌症、40例经活检证实的良性钙化和40项随机选择的阴性筛查研究进行了回顾。收集的数据包括钙化的存在和强制BI-RADS评分。使用BI-RADS进行接收者操作曲线分析。结果：总体钙化检测敏感度FFDM(0.84%[95%CI，0.79-0.88%])高于数字化乳腺断层扫描(0.75%[95%CI，0.70-0.80%])。在癌症队列中，99种解释中有75种(76%)在两种模式下都发现了钙化。其中，分别有3例(4%)和9例(12%)患者的BI-RADS评分小于或等于2。在良性队列中，在200例解释中，123例(62%)在两种模式下都发现了钙化。其中，BI-RADS评分大于或等于3的患者分别为105例(85%)和93例(76%)。BI-RADS评分的受试者操作特征曲线下的非参数计算面积(FFDM值，AUC值分别为0.76和SD=0.03；数字乳房断层成像术的AUC值分别为0.72和0.04[p=0.1277])差异无统计学意义。然而，使用BI-RADS以曲线下面积衡量的诊断性能没有显著差异。随着处理算法和显示的改进，数字乳房断层合成可能会为此而改进。
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to compare the ability of digital breast tomosynthesis and full field digital mammography (FFDM) to detect and characterize calcifications.MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred paired examinations were performed utilizing FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis. Twenty biopsy-proven cancers, 40 biopsy-proven benign calcifications, and 40 randomly selected negative screening studies were retrospectively reviewed by five radiologists in a crossed multireader multimodal observer performance study. Data collected included the presence of calcifications and forced BI-RADS scores. Receiver operator curve analysis using BI-RADS was performed.RESULTS. Overall calcification detection sensitivity was higher for FFDM (0.84% [95% CI, 0.79-0.88%]) than for digital breast tomosynthesis (0.75% [95% CI, 0.70-0.80%]). In the cancer cohort, 75 (76%) of 99 interpretations identified calcification in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score less than or equal to 2 was rendered in three (4%) and nine (12%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. In the benign cohort, 123 (62%) of 200 interpretations identified calcifications in both modes. Of those, a BI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 was assigned in 105 (85%) and 93 (76%) cases with FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis, respectively. There was no significant difference in the nonparametric computed area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) using the BI-RADS scores (FFDM, AUC = 0.76 and SD = 0.03; digital breast tomosynthesis, AUC = 0.72 and SD = 0.04 [p = 0.1277]).CONCLUSION. In this small data set, FFDM appears to be slightly more sensitive than digital breast tomosynthesis for the detection of calcification. However, diagnostic performance as measured by area under the curve using BI-RADS was not significantly different. With improvements in processing algorithms and display, digital breast tomosynthesis could potentially be improved for this purpose.