Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications.
Choi, Ji Soo; Han, Boo-Kyung; Ko, Eun Young; Kim, Ga Ram; Ko, Eun Sook; Park, Ko Woon.
Affiliation
  • Choi JS; Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea.
  • Han BK; Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea. bkhan@skku.edu.
  • Ko EY; Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea.
  • Kim GR; Department of Radiology, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
  • Ko ES; Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea.
  • Park KW; Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 135-710, Korea.
Eur Radiol ; 29(1): 319-329, 2019 Jan.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29931560
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the performance of synthetic mammography (SM) and digital mammography (DM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) or alone for the evaluation of microcalcifications.

METHODS:

This retrospective study includes 198 mammography cases, all with DM, SM, and DBT images, from January to October 2013. Three radiologists interpreted images and recorded the presence of microcalcifications and their conspicuity scores and final BI-RADS categories (1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5). Readers' area under the ROC curves (AUCs) were analyzed for SM plus DBT vs. DM plus DBT and SM alone vs. DM alone using the BI-RADS categories for the overall group and dense breast subgroup.

RESULTS:

Conspicuity scores of detected microcalcifications were neither significantly different between SM and DM with DBT nor alone (p>0.05). In predicting malignancy of detected microcalcifications, no significant difference was found between readers' AUCs for SM and DM with DBT or alone in the overall group or dense breast subgroup (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Diagnostic performances of SM and DM for the evaluation of microcalcifications are not significantly different, whether performed with DBT or alone. KEY POINTS • In DBT-imaging, SM and DM show comparable performances when evaluating microcalcifications. • For BI-RADS classification of microcalcifications, SM and DM show similar AUCs. • DBT with SM may be sufficient for diagnosing microcalcifications, without DM.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast / Breast Diseases / Calcinosis / Mammography Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Female / Humans / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Eur Radiol Journal subject: RADIOLOGIA Year: 2019 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Breast / Breast Diseases / Calcinosis / Mammography Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Female / Humans / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Eur Radiol Journal subject: RADIOLOGIA Year: 2019 Type: Article