Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography - A side-by-side review of discrepant cases.
(2014) In British Journal of Radiology 87(1040).- Abstract
- Objective: To analyse discrepant breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM). Methods: From a previous detection study comparing DBT and DM, 26 discrepant cases were extracted, 19 detected by DBT only and 7 by DM only. An expert panel of 3 radiologists reviewed these cases and documented level of discrepancy, lesion visibility, radiographic pattern, lesion conspicuity and assessed the reason for non-detection. Differences between groups were tested using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, the Kruskal-Wallis test and visual grading characteristics. Results: The proportion of lesion periphery in fatty tissue was statistically significantly larger, and there were significantly more spiculated masses in... (More)
- Objective: To analyse discrepant breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM). Methods: From a previous detection study comparing DBT and DM, 26 discrepant cases were extracted, 19 detected by DBT only and 7 by DM only. An expert panel of 3 radiologists reviewed these cases and documented level of discrepancy, lesion visibility, radiographic pattern, lesion conspicuity and assessed the reason for non-detection. Differences between groups were tested using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, the Kruskal-Wallis test and visual grading characteristics. Results: The proportion of lesion periphery in fatty tissue was statistically significantly larger, and there were significantly more spiculated masses in DBT compared to DM in the DBT Only group (p=0.018; p=0.015). The main reasons for missing a lesion were poor lesion visibility when using DM and interpretative error when using DBT. Conclusion: Lesion visualization is superior with DBT, particularly of spiculated tumours. A major reason for non-detection in DBT seems to be interpretative error, which may be due to lack of experience. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/4529274
- author
- Lång, Kristina LU ; Andersson, Ingvar LU and Zackrisson, Sophia LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2014
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- British Journal of Radiology
- volume
- 87
- issue
- 1040
- article number
- 20140080
- publisher
- British Institute of Radiology
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:24896197
- wos:000339419800010
- scopus:84907487498
- pmid:24896197
- ISSN
- 1748-880X
- DOI
- 10.1259/bjr.20140080
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 484b4418-696e-42fe-8529-b0eed7f52b58 (old id 4529274)
- alternative location
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24896197?dopt=Abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 10:07:40
- date last changed
- 2022-01-25 19:57:24
@article{484b4418-696e-42fe-8529-b0eed7f52b58, abstract = {{Objective: To analyse discrepant breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM). Methods: From a previous detection study comparing DBT and DM, 26 discrepant cases were extracted, 19 detected by DBT only and 7 by DM only. An expert panel of 3 radiologists reviewed these cases and documented level of discrepancy, lesion visibility, radiographic pattern, lesion conspicuity and assessed the reason for non-detection. Differences between groups were tested using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, the Kruskal-Wallis test and visual grading characteristics. Results: The proportion of lesion periphery in fatty tissue was statistically significantly larger, and there were significantly more spiculated masses in DBT compared to DM in the DBT Only group (p=0.018; p=0.015). The main reasons for missing a lesion were poor lesion visibility when using DM and interpretative error when using DBT. Conclusion: Lesion visualization is superior with DBT, particularly of spiculated tumours. A major reason for non-detection in DBT seems to be interpretative error, which may be due to lack of experience.}}, author = {{Lång, Kristina and Andersson, Ingvar and Zackrisson, Sophia}}, issn = {{1748-880X}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{1040}}, publisher = {{British Institute of Radiology}}, series = {{British Journal of Radiology}}, title = {{Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography - A side-by-side review of discrepant cases.}}, url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/1586150/5238839}}, doi = {{10.1259/bjr.20140080}}, volume = {{87}}, year = {{2014}}, }