-
- Susanne Wienbeck, Viktorija Andrijevska, Fabian Kück, Christina Perske, Christina Unterberg-Buchwald, Uwe Fischer, Joachim Lotz, and Meike Kunze.
- University Medical Center Goettingen, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goettingen, Germany.
- Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jun 2; 102 (22): e33900e33900.
AbstractThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of breast density on the diagnostic performance of cone-beam breast-CT (CBBCT) in comparison to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the detection of microcalcifications. This retrospective IRB-approved study was conducted between December 2015 and March 2017 and enrolled 171 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions on FFDM and additional CBBCT; 56 of which were ineligible. The inclusion was restricted to 83 women (90 breasts, 90 lesions) with microcalcifications. All lesions underwent histology or were monitored by FFDM and a clinical examination at least 2 years after enrollment. Two breast radiologists independently read each data set twice. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve were compared between the modalities. Thirty-two breasts (35.5%) were grouped as non-dense breasts (American College of Radiology types a/b) and 58 breasts (64.5%) as dense breasts (American College of Radiology types c/d). Histopathological assessment was performed in 61 of 90 breast lesions (32 malignant, 1 high-risk and 28 benign). Area under the curve was larger for FFDM than for CBBCT (P = .085). The sensitivity was significantly higher for FFDM compared to CBBCT (P = .009). The specificity showed no significant differences comparing FFDM (both readers: 0.62) versus CBBCT (reader 1: 0.76, reader 2: 0.60; P = .192). Inter-observer-reliability on BI-RADS readings was almost perfect for FFDM and moderate for CBBCT (κ = 0.84, κ = 0.54, respectively). Intra-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect for both methods and readers. Compared with FFDM, CBBCT demonstrated non-comparable results for microcalcification detection in dense and non-dense breasts.Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.