首页 / 院系成果 / 成果详情页

Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography, magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women 期刊论文

编号：

1ed0085d-565d-4fa5-b518-520f4019d9e9
作者：

Tang, Wei(汤伟)#^[1]Hu, FeiXiang^[1];Zhu, Hui^[1];Wang, QiFeng(王奇峰)^[2]Gu, YaJia(顾雅佳)^[1]Peng, WeiJun(彭卫军)*^[1]
语种：

English
期刊：

CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION ISSN：1386-0291 2017 年 66 卷 2 期 (105 - 116)
收录：
关键词：

Breast diseases full-field digital mammography magnetic resonance imging digital breast tomosynthesis
摘要：

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficiency of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus digital mammography (DM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus DM in symptomatic women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol used in our study was accepted by the ethics committee at our hospital, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Between June and December 2014, 197 patients with 238 histologically proven lesions all underwent DM, DBT and MRI. Two radiologists were responsible for interpreting all images according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The diagnostic performance of each method was assessed by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared using McNemar's test and Fisher's exact test. A Kappa test was used to assess the interobserver agreement. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was lower in the group that underwent DM alone (Radiologist1 [R-1], 0.849; Radiologist2 [R-2], 0.850) than in the group that underwent DBT plus DM (R-1, 0.907, P = 0.0204; R-2, 0.900, P = 0.0239) and MRI plus DM (R-1, 0.939, P = 0.0006; R-2, 0.935, P = 0.0009). However, the difference between the group that received DBT plus DM and the group that received MRI plus DM was not significant (R-1, P = 0.1262; R-2, P = 0.0843). The accuracy (R-1, 71.8%; R-2, 71.4%) and sensitivity (R-1, 71.9%; R-2, 71.2%) of DM were lower than those of DBT ((accuracy: R-1, 85.3%, P = 0.001; R-2, 83.6%, P < 0.001; sensitivity: R-1,92.1%, P < 0.001; R-2, 90.8%, P < 0.001) and MRI combined with DM (accuracy: R-1, 90.3%, P = 0.001; R-2, 90.7%, P < 0.001; sensitivity: R-1, 94.7%, P < 0.001; R-2, 95.4%, P < 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was observed between DBT and MRI combined with DM (accuracy: R-1, P = 0.644; R-2, P = 0.360; sensitivity: R-1, P = 0.502; R-2, P = 0.359). The interobserver agreement of each method was excellent (k = 0.894 0.919 and 0.882 for DM, DBT and MRI combined with DM, respectively). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of DBT and MRI combined with DM is superior to that of DM alone in symptomatic women; MRI plus DM is slightly better than that of DBT plus DM, but this difference was not statistically significant.
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714：

Tang Wei,Hu Fei-Xiang,Zhu Hui, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography, magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women [J].CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION,2017,66(2):105-116.
APA：

Tang Wei,Hu Fei-Xiang,Zhu Hui,Wang Qi-Feng,&Peng Wei-Jun.(2017).Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography, magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women .CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION,66(2):105-116.
MLA：

Tang Wei, et al. "Digital breast tomosynthesis plus mammography, magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography and mammography alone: A comparison of diagnostic performance in symptomatic women" .CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION 66,2(2017):105-116.

浏览次数：13  下载次数：0

分享到：

浏览次数：13

下载次数：0

打印次数：0