TY - JOUR
T1 - Breast cancer detection in digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography - A side-by-side review of discrepant cases.
AU - Lång, Kristina
AU - Andersson, Ingvar
AU - Zackrisson, Sophia
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20140080
DO - 10.1259/bjr.20140080
M3 - Review article
C2 - 24896197
VL - 87
JO - British Journal of Radiology
JF - British Journal of Radiology
SN - 1748-880X
IS - 1040
M1 - 20140080
ER -