Full-field Digital Mammography In Detection Research Articles

Comparison of Microcalcifications Detection and Characterization in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) With Synthesized 2D Mammography (SM) versus DBT with Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)

Background: Synthesized 2D mammography (SM) has been invented to help lower the radiation dose by circumventing the need for acquiring full-field digital mammography (FFDM) when digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is performed. Prior studies have compared microcalcifications detection and characterization in FFDM with SM or with DBT alone. Only few studies have compared DBT plus SM and DBT plus FFDM. Objective: To determine the performance of DBT with SM versus DBT with FFDM in detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Materials and Methods: Three hundred three paired examinations of 2D plus DBT images in the same session were performed. Fifty-five biopsyproven malignancy, 198 biopsy-proven benign microcalcifications, and 50 randomly selected negative screening studies were retrospectively reviewed by two radiologists. Comparison of sensitivity and specificity between the two modalities were performed. Results: From the 55 malignant microcalcifications, three cases were missed by DBT with FFDM but detected and correctly categorized as malignant by DBT with SM. Only one case of malignant microcalcifications was not detected by DBT with SM, and the present case was also miscategorized as benign by DBT with FFDM. There were no statistically significant differences in both detections (p=0.42), and characterization (p=0.65) of microcalcification between both modalities. In DBT with SM, the sensitivity was higher, and the specificity was lower for both detection and characterization of microcalcification when compared to DBT with FFDM. Conclusion: DBT in combination with SM is comparable to DBT in combination with FFDM for detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Keywords: Synthesized 2D mammography; Full-field digital mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Microcalcifications detection and characterization

Detection of breast cancer presenting as a mass in women with dense breasts- digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography.

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancer presenting as a mass in women with dense breasts. Маterials and Methods: This study included 347asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with dense breasts who underwent full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and hand-held full breast ultrasound. 57core-needle biopsies were performed. Pathology included 31invasive cancers and 26non-cancerous lesions. Sensitivity of full-field digital mammography was 61.3%[0.422-0.789] and sensitivity of digital breast tomosynthesis was 77.4%[0.589-0.904]. Specificity of full-field digital mammography was 92.7%[0.893-0.953] that was 2.2% lower than the specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis- 94.9%[0.919-0.971]. Results of our study showed superior sensitivity and specificity of digital breast tomosynthesis compared to full-field digital mammography for detection of malignant masses in women with dense breasts.

Detection of Breast Cancer with a Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Full-Field Digital Mammography

A study was conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of computer-aided detection (CAD) with full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancer, based on mammographic appearance and histopathology. Retrospectively, CAD sensitivity was assessed in total group of 152 cases for subgroups based on breast density, mammographic presentation, lesion size, and results of histopathological examination. The overall sensitivity of CAD was 91% (139 of 152 cases). CAD detected 100% (47/47) of cancers manifested as microcalcifications; 98% (62/63) of those manifested as non-calcified masses; 100% (15/15) of those manifested as mixed masses and microcalcifications; 75% (12/16) of those manifested as architectural distortions, and 69% (18/26) of those manifested as focal asymmetry. CAD sensitivity was 83% (10/12) for cancers measuring 1-10mm, 92% (37/40) for those measuring 11-20mm, and 92% (92/100) for those measuring >20mm. There was no significant difference in CAD detection efficiency between cancers in dense breasts (88%; 69/78) and those in non-dense breasts (95%; 70/74). CAD showed a high sensitivity of 91% (139/152) for the mammographic appearance of cancer and 100% sensitivity for identifying cancers manifested as microcalcifications. Sensitivity was not influenced by breast density or lesion size. CAD should be effective for helping radiologists detect breast cancer at an earlier stage.

Sensitivity of integral computer-aided detection with full-field digital mammography for detection of breast cancer according to different histopathological tumor types and appearances

Sensitivity of integral computer-aided detection with full-field digital mammography for detection of breast cancer according to different histopathological tumor types and appearances

Sensitivity of a Direct Computer-aided Detection System in Full-field Digital Mammography for Detection of Microcalcifications Not Associated with Mass or Architectural Distortion

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of a direct computer-aided detection (CAD) system (d-CAD) in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for the detection of microcalcifications not associated with mass or architectural distortion. Materials and Methods A database search of 1063 consecutive stereotactic core biopsies performed between 2002 and 2005 identified 196 patients with Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 and 5 microcalcifications not associated with mass or distortion detected exclusively by bilateral FFDM. A commercially available CAD system (Second Look, version 7.2) was retrospectively applied to the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views in these patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 35–84 years). Breast density, location and mammographic size of the lesion, distribution, and tumour histology were recorded and analysed by using χ 2, Fisher exact, or McNemar tests, when applicable. Results When using d-CAD, 71 of 74 malignant microcalcification cases (96%) and 101 of 122 benign microcalcifications (83%) were identified. There was a significant difference ( P < .05) between CAD sensitivity on the craniocaudal view, 91% (68 of 75), vs CAD sensitivity on the mediolateral oblique view, 80% (60 of 75). The d-CAD sensitivity for dense breast tissue (American College of Radiology [ACR] density 3 and 4) was higher (97%) than d-CAD sensitivity (95%) for nondense tissue (ACR density 1 and 2), but the difference was not statically significant. All 28 malignant calcifications larger than 10 mm were detected by CAD, whereas the sensitivity for lesions small than or equal to 10 mm was 94%. Conclusions D-CAD had a high sensitivity in the depiction of asymptomatic breast cancers, which were seen as microcalcifications on FFDM screening, with a sensitivity of d-CAD on the craniocaudal view being significantly better. All malignant microcalcifications larger than 10 mm were detected by d-CAD.

Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers

Objective The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in detection of breast cancers. Materials and Methods CAD was retrospectively applied to standard mammographic views of 127 cases with biopsy proven breast cancers detected with FFDM (Senographe 2000, GE Medical Systems). CAD sensitivity was assessed in total group of 127 cases and for subgroups based on breast density, mammographic lesion type, mammographic lesion size, histopathology and mode of presentation. Results Overall CAD sensitivity was 91% (115 of 127 cases). There were no statistical differences ( p > 0.1) in CAD detection of cancers in dense breasts 90% (53/59) versus non-dense breasts 91% (62/68). There was statistical difference ( p < 0.05) in CAD detection of cancers that appeared mammographically as microcalcifications only versus other mammographic manifestations. CAD detected 100% (44/44) of cancers manifesting as microcalcifications, 89% (47/53) as no-calcified masses or asymmetries, 88% (14/16) as masses with associated calcifications, and 71% (10/14) as architectural distortions. CAD sensitivity for cancers 1–10 mm was 84% (38/45); 11–20 mm 93% (55/59); and >20 mm 97% (22/23). Conclusion CAD applied to FFDM showed 100% sensitivity in identifying cancers manifesting as microcalcifications only and high sensitivity 86% (71/83) for other mammographic appearances of cancer. Sensitivity is influenced by lesion size. CAD in FFDM is an adjunct helping radiologist in early detection of breast cancers.