Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic Efficacy across Dense and Non-Dense Breasts during Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Ultrasound Assessment for Recalled Women.
Hadadi, Ibrahim; Clarke, Jillian; Rae, William; McEntee, Mark; Vincent, Wendy; Ekpo, Ernest.
Afiliação
  • Hadadi I; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
  • Clarke J; Department of Radiological Sciences, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi Arabia.
  • Rae W; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
  • McEntee M; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
  • Vincent W; Medical Imaging Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia.
  • Ekpo E; Medical Image Optimisation and Perception Group, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 12(6)2022 Jun 16.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35741287
ABSTRACT

Background:

To compare the diagnostic efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and ultrasound across breast densities in women recalled for assessment.

Methods:

A total of 482 women recalled for assessment from January 2017 to December 2019 were selected for the study. Women met the inclusion criteria if they had undergone DBT, ultrasound and had confirmed biopsy results. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and AUC for DBT and ultrasound.

Results:

In dense breasts, DBT showed significantly higher sensitivity than ultrasound (98.2% vs. 80%; p < 0.001), but lower specificity (15.4% vs. 55%; p < 0.001), PPV (61.3% vs. 71%; p = 0.04) and AUC (0.568 vs. 0.671; p = 0.001). In non-dense breasts, DBT showed significantly higher sensitivity than ultrasound (99.2% vs. 84%; p < 0.001), but no differences in specificity (22% vs. 33%; p = 0.14), PPV (69.2% vs. 68.8%; p = 0.93) or AUC (0.606 vs. 0.583; p = 0.57). Around 73% (74% dense and 71% non-dense) and 77% (81% dense and 72% non-dense) of lesions assigned a RANZCR 3 by DBT and ultrasound, respectively, were benign.

Conclusion:

DBT has higher sensitivity, but lower specificity and PPV than ultrasound in women with dense breasts recalled for assessment. Most lesions rated RANZCR 3 on DBT and ultrasound are benign and may benefit from short interval follow-up rather than biopsy.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Diagnostics (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Diagnostics (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Austrália