+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound



Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound



Journal of Breast Cancer 19(3): 316-323



We aimed to compare the detection of breast cancer using full-field digital mammography (FFDM), FFDM with computer-aided detection (FFDM+CAD), ultrasound (US), and FFDM+CAD plus US (FFDM+CAD+US), and to investigate the factors affecting cancer detection. In this retrospective study conducted from 2008 to 2012, 48,251 women underwent FFDM and US for cancer screening. One hundred seventy-one breast cancers were detected: 115 invasive cancers and 56 carcinomas in situ. Two radiologists evaluated the imaging findings of FFDM, FFDM+CAD, and US, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon of the American College of Radiology by consensus. We reviewed the clinical and the pathological data to investigate factors affecting cancer detection. We statistically used generalized estimation equations with a logit link to compare the cancer detectability of different imaging modalities. To compare the various factors affecting detection versus nondetection, we used Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact test. The detectability of breast cancer by US (96.5%) or FFDM+CAD+US (100%) was superior to that of FFDM (87.1%) (p=0.019 or p<0.001, respectively) or FFDM+ CAD (88.3%) (p=0.050 or p<0.001, respectively). However, cancer detectability was not significantly different between FFDM versus FFDM+CAD (p=1.000) and US alone versus FFDM+CAD+US (p=0.126). The tumor size influenced cancer detectability by all imaging modalities (p<0.050). In FFDM and FFDM+CAD, the nondetecting group consisted of younger patients and patients with a denser breast composition (p<0.050). In breast US, carcinoma in situ was more frequent in the nondetecting group (p=0.014). For breast cancer screening, breast US alone is satisfactory for all age groups, although FFDM+ CAD+US is the perfect screening method. Patient age, breast composition, and pathological tumor size and type may influence cancer detection during screening.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057324350

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27721882

DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.316


Related references

Detection of breast cancer with a computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography. Journal of Digital Imaging 26(4): 768-773, 2014

Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers. European Journal of Radiology 77(3): 457-461, 2011

Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 23(2): 151-154, 2012

Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. European Radiology 26(8): 2538-2546, 2017

The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with digital mammography alone. Health Technology Assessment 19(4): I-Xxv, 1-136, 2015

Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 192(2): 337-340, 2009

Detection of breast cancer in asymptomatic and symptomatic groups using computer-aided detection with full-field digital mammography. Journal of Breast Cancer 16(3): 322-328, 2013

Comparison of Image Quality Criteria between Digital Storage Phosphor Plate in Mammography and Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Detection of Breast Cancer. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 19(1): 52-59, 2012

Computer-Aided Detection in the Mammographic Detection of Breast Cancer: Where, Why, and How With Screen-Film, Computed Radiography, and Full-Field Digital Mammography. Seminars in Breast Disease 9(3): 99-104, 2006

Comparison of the Detection Rate of Simulated Microcalcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Synthetically Reconstructed 2-Dimensional Images Performed With 2 Different Digital X-ray Mammography Systems. Investigative Radiology 52(4): 206-215, 2016

Analysis of computer-aided detection techniques and signal characteristics for clustered microcalcifications on digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Physics in Medicine and Biology 61(19): 7092-7112, 2016

Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 26(1): 45-48, 2015

Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. European Journal of Cancer 50(7): 1232-1238, 2014

Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening. Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association 11(3): 152-157, 2010

Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Digital Mammography (DM) for Detection of Breast Cancer in Women in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice 2018, 2018