Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
2D or Synthetic 2D? A Reader Study of Visualization of Amorphous Calcifications.
Renaldo, Andrew; Miller, Matthew; Caley, Matthew; Ganti, Ramapriya; Patrie, James; Rochman, Carrie; Nguyen, Jonathan V.
Afiliação
  • Renaldo A; University of Virginia Health System, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Miller M; University of Virginia Health System, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Caley M; University of Virginia Health System, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Ganti R; University of Virginia Health System, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Patrie J; University of Virginia School of Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Rochman C; University of Virginia Health System, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Nguyen JV; University of Virginia Health System, Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
J Breast Imaging ; 4(1): 19-24, 2022.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35103252
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Some vendors have created algorithms that generate synthetic 2D (s2D) images from a digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) dataset to reduce the radiation from obtaining a separate 2D digital mammography (DM). This study evaluated the visibility of amorphous calcifications on 2D DM versus s2D on screening mammography.

METHODS:

This IRB-approved, retrospective, reader study included screening mammograms from 36 women who received screening DBT exams where both 2D DM and s2D images were obtained 28 screening mammograms that were eventually given BI-RADS category 4 or 5 for amorphous calcifications and 8 BI-RADS category 1 or 2 screening exams. Two rounds of interpretation were conducted with a six-week washout period. Cases were randomized to display either the 2D DM or s2D images, which were then alternated in the second round. Four fellowship-trained breast radiologists determined whether a study merited recall for calcifications. If so, they rated calcification visibility on a scale of 1 to 5. McNemar chi-square tests were conducted to assess differences in recall rates and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to examine shifts in visibility.

RESULTS:

There was no difference in detection rates of amorphous calcifications between 2D DM and s2D, which were 75.9% and 75.0%, respectively (P = 1.000). Collectively, amorphous calcifications were more visible on s2D than 2D DM, with mean visibility scores of 3.4 versus 3.0, respectively (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION:

Synthetic 2D did not change identification of amorphous calcifications compared to 2D DM, and readers considered them more visible on average.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Breast Imaging Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: EEUU / ESTADOS UNIDOS / ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMERICA / EUA / UNITED STATES / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / US / USA

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Breast Imaging Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos País de publicação: EEUU / ESTADOS UNIDOS / ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMERICA / EUA / UNITED STATES / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / US / USA