DBT联合FFDM在乳腺癌诊断中的价值研究

目的:探讨数字乳腺三维断层摄影技术（DBT）联合全数字化乳腺摄影(FFDM)在乳腺癌诊断中的价值。方法:前瞻性选取2015年10月至2017年10月哈励逊国际和平医院怀疑女性乳腺疾病的患者398例,均给予FFDM、DBT检查,根据乳腺影像报告和数据系统的分型标准(BI-RADS)对乳腺病灶进行分类,以病理结果为对照,分析FFDM、FFDM联合DBT对乳腺癌的诊断价值。结果:FFDM联合DBT检查的2类检出率明显高于FFDM检查（P＜0.05）;在诊断乳腺正常与良性病变中,FFDM联合DBT检查的2类检出率明显高于FFDM检查（P＜0.05）;在诊断乳腺癌中,FFDM联合DBT检查的5类检出率明显高于FFDM检查（P＜0.05）;FFDM联合DBT检查诊断乳腺癌的敏感度、准确度明显高于FFDM检查（P＜0.05）。结论:与单独FFDM检查比较,FFDM联合DBT可更有效地对乳腺病灶进行BI-RADS分类,有利于提高对乳腺癌诊断的敏感性、准确性,值得临床进一步推广。     

数字乳腺断层融合X线摄影与常规影像学检查诊断效能的对比研究

背景与目的:乳腺癌已成为女性最常见的恶性肿瘤,乳腺X线摄影新技术的出现对乳腺癌诊断起重要作用;该研究旨在对比数字乳腺断层融合X线摄影(digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT)与常规影像学检查诊断乳腺良、恶性病变的效能.方法:收集2015年3月—2015年12月在复旦大学附属肿瘤医院就诊且经临床或超声检查怀疑乳腺病变的227例患者.所有患者均行B超、全屏数字乳腺X线摄影(full-field digital mammog-raphy,FFDM)、DBT和MRI检查.高年资影像医师双盲阅片,参照2013版BI-RADS分类标准,以病理结果为金标准,采用受试者工作特征(operating characteristic,ROC)曲线分析各种检查方法的诊断效能,并利用Z检验比较DBT与其他检查方法的统计学差异.结果:30例患者因图像不符合诊断要求而排除,剩余197例患者共发现205个病灶,其中良性病灶73例,恶性病灶132例.B超、FFDM、DBT、DBT+FFDM和MRI基于BI-RADS分类诊断乳腺良、恶性病变的ROC曲线的曲线下面积(area under the curve,AUC)分别为0.8308、0.8592、0.9167、0.9198和0.9354;两两比较结果显示,DBT的AUC高于B超和FFDM,且差异均有统计学意义(比B超相比,Z=7.36,P=0.0067;与FFDM相比,Z=4.89,P=0.0271);DBT与MRI、DBT+FFDM的AUC差异无统计学意义(与MRI相比,Z=0.02,P=0.9002;与DBT+FFDM相比,Z=0.69,P=0.4048).结论:DBT较B超、FFDM能显著提高乳腺良、恶性病灶的诊断效能;并与MRI诊断效能相当.DBT作为乳腺X摄影新技术,具有良好的应用前景.     

数字乳腺断层融合X线成像技术对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的 探讨数字乳腺断层融合X线成像技术(DBT)在乳腺癌早期诊断中的应用价值.方法 对150例临床检查可疑、乳腺超声诊断报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)0级或≥3级的病例,分别行乳腺X线摄影(DM)检查和DBT检查,并独立诊断.以病理诊断结果 为金标准,比较DM和DBT对早期乳腺癌及致密型乳腺癌的诊断效能.结果以病理诊断结果为金标准,DBT与DM诊断早期乳腺癌的灵敏度分别为86.6％和74.2％,特异度分别为96.2％和81.1％,准确度分别为90.0％和76.7％,DBT对早期乳腺癌的诊断效能优于DM,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).以病理诊断结果为金标准,DBT与DM对致密型乳腺癌诊断的灵敏度分别为94.6％和70.3％,特异度分别为92.9％和64.3％,准确度分别为93.8％和67.7％,DBT对致密型乳腺癌的诊断效能优于DM,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05).结论 DBT能提高早期乳腺癌尤其是致密型乳腺癌的检出率,诊断效能优于DM.     

双模式数字乳腺体层合成成像对乳腺疾病的诊断价值

背景与目的：全数字化乳腺X线摄影（full-field digital mammography,FFDM）可显著降低乳腺癌的死亡率,但作为一种二维成像方式,对于致密型乳腺构成分类患者,其诊断灵敏度和特异度明显较低。探讨数字乳腺体层合成成像（digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT）结合FFDM对乳腺病变的鉴别诊断价值以及高分辨率扫描（high-resolution,HR）模式（扫描角度为40°,DBT-HR）和标准扫描（standard,ST）模式（扫描角度为15°,DBT-ST）诊断乳腺病变的价值。方法：前瞻性收集2016年7月—9月经临床或超声检查怀疑有乳腺异常病变,且经穿刺活检或术后病理学检查证实的175例女性乳腺疾病患者,行FFDM和DBT检查,随机进入DBT-HR组和DBT-ST组,对FFDM图像和DBT结合FFDM图像进行分析。参照2013版《乳腺影像报告和数据系统》（Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System,BI-RADS）分类标准,以病理学检查结果为金标准,采用受试者工作特征（receiver operating characteristic,ROC）曲线分析FFDM和DBT结合FFDM的诊断效能,根据不同的乳腺构成分类分别分析DBT-HR和DBT-ST的灵敏度和特异度。结果：175例患者共检出181个病灶,良性病灶50个,恶性病灶131个,所有入组病例的FFDM和FFDM结合DBT的灵敏度为81.92%和91.15%,特异度为77.45%和87.25%,两种方法的ROC曲线的曲线下面积（area under curve,AUC）差异有统计学意义（0.88 vs 0.94,Z值=5.37,P<0.01）。随机分入DBT-HR组病灶86个而DBT-ST组病灶95个。DBT-HR组FFDM和DBT主要征象表现一致率为83.14%,仅DBT可见率为3.49%,DBT-ST组FFDM和DBT主要征象表现一致率为92.63%,仅DBT可见率为0.53%。致密型乳房在结合DBT后灵敏度和特异度提高均较非致密型乳房明显,尤其是HR组致密型乳房灵敏度（18.72%）和ST组的致密型乳房的特异度（14.28%）均有所提高。结论：FFDM结合DBT的诊断效能优于FFDM,且DBT-HR优于DBT-ST,尤其是对致密型乳房的诊断。     

乳腺断层摄影在致密型乳腺诊断中的应用进展

2009年康涅狄格州法案,引起了国内外各界对致密型乳腺的关注。但目前国内外尚无统一标准或指南用来指导选择致密型乳腺病变的检查手段。乳腺断层摄影（digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT）作为一种新的摄影技术成为目前研究的热点,下文就DBT在致密型乳腺诊断中的应用价值作一系统综述。     

基于乳腺X线摄影发现的乳腺病灶与乳腺断层摄影一致性分析

目的:探讨乳腺X线摄影（digital mammography,DM）发现的乳腺病灶与乳腺断层摄影（digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT）诊断乳腺病灶的一致性。方法:回顾性分析来我院进行乳腺癌检查发现乳腺病灶的患者DM和DBT检查资料，对DM、DBT发现的乳腺病灶的最大直径、形态、边缘、密度、深度、象限、钟点方向、距乳头距离、乳腺实质BI-ARDS分类、可疑性钙化分布、可疑性钙化形态及最终分类进行一致性分析。结果:DBT、DM检查共同发现病灶165例，其中可疑性钙化23例，结构扭曲15例，肿块154例，不对称致密60例。两种方法检查乳腺病灶的钟点方向、距乳头距离、象限、深度一致性分别为0.84、0.99、0.85、0.85。两种方法图像特征描述的一致性参数分别为最大直径0.97、形态0.91、边缘0.94、密度0.94。两种方法钙化特征描述的一致性参数可疑性钙化分布0.86、可疑性钙化形态0.94。形态乳腺实质BI-ARDS分类一致性参数为0.95。病灶BI-ARDS分类一致性参数为0.94。结论:在乳腺病灶诊断方面，DBT和DM具有较好的一致性，DBT较DM可以发现更多的乳腺病灶，可作为乳腺X线摄影的补充方法应用于诊断及新辅助化疗疗效评价等方面。     

全视野数字化乳腺X线联合断层摄影对不可触及乳腺病灶的诊断价值

目的探讨全视野数字乳腺X线(FFDM)联合数字断层(DBT)摄影对乳腺不可触及病灶的诊断价值。方法本前瞻性研究纳入2017年6月至2019年12月镇江市妇幼保健院临床查体阴性而影像学检查发现乳腺病灶的患者126例,共计137处病灶。术前分别采用FFDM和FFDM+DBT检查进行独立诊断,入组后行导丝定位切除活组织检查、穿刺活组织检查或真空辅助旋切,标本送病理学检查。以病理结果为金标准,绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,计算曲线下面积(AUC),用McNemar检验、Fisher精确概率法或χ~2检验比较2种方法的诊断效能。采用Bowker检验比较2种方法对肿块型病灶的边缘特征检查结果差异。结果 FFDM和FFDM+DBT对137处不可触及乳腺病灶的总检出率分别为86.9%(119/137)、94.2%(129/137),差异有统计学意义(χ~2=4.249,P=0.039);在致密性乳腺中的病灶检出率分别为79.8%(71/89)、91.0%(81/89),FFDM+DBT优于FFDM(χ~2=4.504,P=0.034);对非致密性腺体,2种检查均可检出所有病灶。以病理结果为金标准,FFDM+DBT对全部病灶的诊断准确率高于FFDM[92.0%(126/137)比78.8%(108/137),χ~2=9.485,P=0.002];FFDM+DBT的AUC为0.976±0.010 (95%CI:0.934～0.994), FFDM的AUC为0.821±0.037 (95%CI:0.747～0.882),差异具有统计学意义(Z=4.131,P0.001)。对于致密性腺体,FFDM+DBT的敏感度、准确率和阴性预测值均优于FFDM(P=0.008、0.012、0.037);对于非致密性腺体的检查,两种方法的各指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均0.050)。对于112个肿块型病灶,FFDM+DBT的特异度、准确率及阳性预测值均高于FFDM (P=0.011;χ~2=9.333、5.829;P=0.002、0.016);其中,对62个良性病灶,FFDM及FFDM+DBT的清晰边缘检出率分别为54.8%(34/62)、80.6%(50/62),差异有统计学意义(Bowker T=18.000,P0.001);对50个恶性病灶,FFDM及FFDM+DBT的毛刺征检出率分别为50%(25/50)、72%(36/50),差异有统计学意义(Bowker T=12.000,P=0.017)。对于45个可疑钙化病灶,FFDM+DBT的特异度与准确率优于FFDM[83.9%(26/31)比61.3%(19/31),P=0.046; 88.9%(40/45)比71.1%(32/45),χ~2=4.444,P=0.035]。对于结构纠结性病灶,FFDM及FFDM+DBT的检出率分别为3/9、9/9,FFDM+DBT优于FFDM(P=0.003)。结论 FFDM+DBT对于不可触及病灶的诊断效能优于FFDM,尤其对于致密性乳腺腺体。     

数字乳腺断层融合X线摄影术前评估乳腺癌肿块大小的效能对比研究

背景与目的：全数字化乳腺摄影（full-field digital mammography,FFDM）的大规模使用可显著降低乳腺癌的死亡率,但对于致密型乳腺患者,其诊断灵敏度和特异度明显减低。本研究旨在对比数字乳腺断层融合X线摄影（digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT）与常规影像学检查术前评估乳腺癌肿块大小的效能。方法：回顾性分析2015年3月—2015年12月在复旦大学附属肿瘤医院就诊并经病理学检查证实为乳腺癌的136例患者,所有患者均行超声、FFDM、DBT和磁共振成像（magnetic resonance imaging,MRI）检查。选取每种检查均可测量最大径的肿块纳入本研究。由3名高年资放射诊断科医师分别测量可见肿块最大径,利用方差分析比较DBT、超声、FFDM及MRI与术后大体标本测量值之间的差异;利用Pearson相关系数分析各种检查与大体标本测量值之间的相关性,并应用配对t检验评价DBT术前评估肿块大小的能力。结果：136例患者共发现140枚肿块,排除26例患者选择先辅助化疗后再行手术,最后纳入研究的为114枚肿块。DBT及MRI测得肿瘤最大径与病理测量值之间差异无统计学意义（P均>0.05）;FFDM和超声与病理测量值相比差异有统计学意义（与FFDM相比：t=3.30,P=0.013 4;与超声相比：t=2.58,P=0.021 5）。DBT（r=0.81）、MRI测量值（r=0.84）与病理测量值的相关性显著高于超声（r=0.68）和FFDM组（r=0.69)。结论：DBT术前评估乳腺癌肿块大小的能力显著优于超声和FFDM,与MRI相似;DBT作为乳腺X线摄影新技术,在乳腺癌术前分期中有良好的应用前景。     

全数字化乳腺摄影对乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的 评价全数字化乳腺摄影(FFDM)对乳腺癌的诊断价值.方法 搜集2008年1月至7月间230例女性乳腺疾病患者的临床资料以及乳腺X线片(其中有8例患者为双侧乳腺病变).术前所有患者均行FFDM检查,常规拍摄双侧乳腺头尾位(CC)和内外斜位(MLO).3位擅长乳腺影像诊断的放射科医师对乳腺X线片分析,并进行乳腺影像学报告数据系统(BI-PADS)分级.以术后病理结果为金标准,评价FFDM检查诊断乳腺癌的敏感度、特异度和准确率,并分析漏诊和误诊的原因.结果 术后病理结果显示,238例手术乳腺标本中,130例为恶性肿瘤,其中最常见为浸润性导管癌(109例);108例为乳腺良性病变,其中最常见为乳腺病(57例).乳腺恶性肿瘤最常见的X线表现为肿块(40.8%),其次为肿块伴钙化(20.8%).共发现假阴性12例,假阳性14例.FFDM检查对乳腺癌诊断的敏感度、特异度和准确率分别为90.8%、87.0%和89.1%.漏诊最主要的原因是某些乳腺癌的X线表现正常(5例)或x线表现为局灶性非对称性致密(4例).误诊最主要的原因是将边缘模糊、毛刺、分叶的肿块误诊为恶性肿瘤(7例).结论 FFDM检查诊断乳腺癌的敏感度、特异度和准确率均较高,具有重要的临床应用价值.     

联合应用数字乳腺断层摄影与超声对乳腺内结构扭曲病变的诊断价值研究

目的:研究结构扭曲型病变（architectural distortion,AD）的乳腺断层摄影（digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT）及超声检测效能,以提高恶性结构扭曲型病变的检出及诊断能力。方法:回顾性分析我院（2018.08.01-2021.04.15）全数字乳腺X线摄影（FFDM）+DBT发现的268例女性患者288处结构扭曲病灶影像学资料,以病理结果为金标准,分析DBT、超声对结构扭曲的检出效能。结果:全组包括恶性病变105处,良性病变96处,高风险病变87处。DBT较FFDM额外检出102处。全组病灶有超声相关征象组（190处）与无超声相关征象组（98处）的病变良恶性分布有统计学差异（χ2=43.663,P=0.000））,有超声相关征象组内恶性病变占比高于无超声相关征象组［48.95%（93/190） vs 12.24%（12/98),χ2=37.594,P=0.000］。仅DBT检出的102处AD病变中,有超声相关征象组内恶性病灶占比高于无超声相关征象组内恶性病变占比［35.42%（17/48） vs 14.81%（8/54）, χ2=5.829,P=0.016］。结论:应用DBT能提高乳腺内结构扭曲型病变的检出,联合超声对病变进行检测评估,有助于更好的预测病变的良恶性。AD病变所在乳腺相应区域合并超声可疑征象时,其恶性可能性较大;若超声无可疑征象,不可无视其恶性风险。     

A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers

Purpose

To evaluate interobserver agreement in full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in terms of both lesion detection and characterization, and to evaluate the cancer detection rate of standard two-view FFDM compared to various combinations of DBT.

Materials and methods

Thirty-five women (mean age 59.7; range 50–80 years) with 37 breast cancers who underwent both two-view DBT and two-view FFDM were included. DBT images were obtained using an investigational prototype. We performed interobserver agreement analyses using kappa (k) statistics. The cancer detection rate of various combinations of DBT compared to standard two-view FFDM was estimated using a generalized estimation equation.

Results

There was fair to moderate agreement on detectability (k = 0.59–0.62) in both views of FFDM and DBT, while fair to substantial agreement was found for lesion location (k = 0.52–0.84) and fair to moderate agreement for lesion type (k = 0.46–0.70) and BI-RADS final assessment (k = 0.48–0.69). In generalized estimation equations, standard two-view FFDM was inferior to any combination of DBT. The detection rate ratio was significantly higher in the combined four views of DBT and FFDM compared to standard FFDM (p < 0.046).

Conclusion

Our study showed good agreement in lesion detection and characterization between FFDM and DBT images. Our findings also demonstrated that combining DBT and FFDM is superior in detecting cancer compared to standard FFDM.

     

A prospective study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis with digital mammography in surveillance after breast cancer treatment

BackgroundAlthough the benefit of adjunct digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is established in population screening, its benefit in surveillance after breast cancer treatment is not well defined. We prospectively evaluated whether the addition of DBT to digital mammography (DM) reduced the rate of indeterminate findings compared to DM alone in patients after breast cancer treatment.MethodsPatients had both DM and DBT for routine surveillance. Two-dimensional synthesised mammogram (SM) was generated for each patient from DBT data. DM, SM, and DBT images were read for each patient by one of four radiologists credentialed for DBT. We compared the rates of indeterminate findings between DM + DBT with DM alone in patients with a range of breast densities and between DM and SM.ResultsA total of 618 patients and 1069 breasts were analysed. The rates of indeterminate findings for DM + DBT versus DM alone were 10.5% and 13.1%, respectively (p = 0.018). In breasts treated with surgery and radiotherapy (n = 558), the corresponding rates of indeterminate findings were 4.9% and 6.9%, respectively (p = 0.039). The rate of indeterminate findings for DM + DBT increased with increasing breast density (p = 0.019). There was no significant difference in the rates of indeterminate findings between DM and SM (13.1% versus 11.5%, p = 0.1).ConclusionThe addition of DBT to DM reduced the rate of indeterminate findings in surveillance of patients after breast cancer treatment. Further research is required to confirm whether DBT and SM could replace DM for patients undergoing surveillance.     

Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging

Given the increasingly important role of breast density as an independent risk factor for breast cancer, and the variable breast imaging tests that potentially provide measures for density. We compared breast tissue density on digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using semi-automated automated software. These three imaging modalities have not been previously directly compared for estimating breast tissue density. Following informed consent from all participating women, FFDM, DBT, and MRI were performed. Breast percentage density was calculated with semi-automated software, and compared, for all three imaging modalities. 48 patients (mean age, 41 years; range, 35–67 years) underwent FFDM, DBT, and MRI. Percent FFDM, DBT, and MRI breast density measures showed a positive linear correlation, (r = 0.95 for MRI and DBT, P < 0.0001; r = 0.97, P < 0.0001 for FFDM and DBT; r = 0.87 for FFDM and MRI). Linear regression analysis related to MRI and DBT had a high r ² = 0.89 (95 % CI = 0.88–0.99, P < 0.001). FFDM overestimated breast density in 15.1 % in comparison to DBT and in 16.2 % in comparison to MRI, or conversely each of DBT and MRI underestimated density (relative to FFDM) by 15.1 or 16.2 %, respectively. Differences in percentage breast density between FFDM and DBT, and between FFDM and MRI, were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Differences in percentage breast density between DBT and MRI were not significant (P > 0.05). Breast density measures using FFDM, DBT, or MRI were generally well-correlated, although differences were noted between estimates when comparing FFDM and DBT, and for estimates comparing FFDM and MRI. No signficant differences in percentage density were observed when comparing DBT and MRI. Our work highlight that differences between FFDM, DBT, and MRI should be considered when measuring percentage breast density.     

Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis

Purpose

To give an overview of studies comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in breast cancer screening.

Materials and methods

The implementation of tomosynthesis in breast imaging is rapidly increasing world-wide. Experimental clinical studies of relevance for DBT screening have shown that tomosynthesis might have a great potential in breast cancer screening, although most of these retrospective reading studies are based on small populations, so that final conclusions are difficult to draw from individual reports. Several retrospective studies and three prospective trials on tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening have been published so far, confirming the great potential of DBT in mammography screening. The main results of these screening studies are presented.

Results

The retrospective screening studies from USA have all shown a significant decrease in the recall rate using DBT as adjunct to mammography. Most of these studies have also shown an increase in the cancer detection rate, and the non-significant results in some studies might be explained by a lack of statistical power. All the three prospective European trials have shown a significant increase in the cancer detection rate.

Conclusion

The retrospective and the prospective screening studies comparing FFDM and DBT have all demonstrated that tomosynthesis has a great potential for improving breast cancer screening. DBT should be regarded as a better mammogram that could improve or overcome limitations of the conventional mammography, and tomosynthesis might be considered as the new technique in the next future of breast cancer screening.

     

Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis

Background

The aim of this study was to determine if the diagnostic performance of breast lesion examinations could be improved using both digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and conventional digital mammography (CDM).

Methods

Our institutional review board approved the protocol, and patients were provided the opportunity to opt out of the study. A total of 628 patients aged 22–91 years with abnormal screening results or clinical symptoms were consecutively enrolled between June 2015 and March 2016. All patients underwent DBT and CDM, and 1164 breasts were retrospectively analyzed by three radiologists who interpreted the results based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Categories 4 and 5 were considered positive, and pathological results were the gold standard. The diagnostic performance of CDM and CDM plus DBT was compared using the mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results

A total of 100 breast cancer cases were identified. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.9160 (95% confidence interval 0.8779–0.9541) for CDM alone and 0.9376 (95% confidence interval 0.9019–0.9733) for CDM plus DBT. The cut-off values for both CDM alone and CDM plus DBT measurements were 4, with sensitivities of 61.0% (61/100) and 83.0% (83/100), respectively, and specificities of 99.1% (1054/1064) and 98.9% (1052/1064), respectively. CDM yielded 39 false-negative diagnoses, while CDM plus DBT identified breast cancer in 22 of those cases (56.4%).

Conclusion

The combination of DBT and CDM for the diagnosis of breast cancer in women with abnormal examination findings or clinical symptoms proved effective and should be used to improve the diagnostic performance of breast cancer examinations.