• Medicine · Jun 2023

    Comparison between cone-beam breast-CT and full-field digital mammography for microcalcification detection depending on breast density.

    • 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.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.