Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography.
Giess, Catherine S; Raza, Sughra; Denison, Christine M; Yeh, Eren D; Gombos, Eva C; Frost, Elisabeth P; Bay, Camden P; Chikarmane, Sona A.
Afiliación
  • Giess CS; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America. Electronic address: cgiess@bwh.harvard.edu.
  • Raza S; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
  • Denison CM; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
  • Yeh ED; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
  • Gombos EC; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
  • Frost EP; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
  • Bay CP; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
  • Chikarmane SA; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States of America.
Clin Imaging ; 75: 90-96, 2021 Jul.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33508756
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To compare lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Seven breast imagers each prospectively evaluated 107-228 screening mammograms (FFDM, DBT, and SM; total 1206 examinations) over 12 weeks in sets of 10-50 consecutive examinations. Interpretation sessions alternated as follows SM + DBT, then FFDM, or FFDM + DBT, then SM. Lesion conspicuity on SM versus FFDM (equal/better versus less) was assessed using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. DBT-only findings were excluded.

RESULTS:

Overall 1082 of 1206 (89.7%) examinations were assessed BI-RADS 1/2, and 124 of 1206 (10.3%) assessed BI-RADS 0. There were 409 evaluated findings, including 134 masses, 119 calcifications, 72 asymmetries, 49 architectural distortion, and 35 focal asymmetries. SM conspicuity compared to FFDM conspicuity for lesions was rated 1) masses 77 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, 57 (43%) less conspicuous; 2) asymmetries/focal asymmetries 61 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, and 46 (43%) less conspicuous; 3) architectural distortion 46 (94%) equal or more conspicuous, 3 (6%) less conspicuous; 4) calcifications 115 (97%) equal or more conspicuous, 4 (3%) less conspicuous. SM had better conspicuity than FFDM for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.

CONCLUSION:

Compared to FFDM, SM has better conspicuity for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Mama / Mamografía Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Imaging Asunto de la revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Mama / Mamografía Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Imaging Asunto de la revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article