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

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 20...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of breast cancer 2016, 19(3), 79, pp.316-323
Hauptverfasser: Cho, Kyu Ran, Seo, Bo Kyoung, Woo, Ok Hee, Song, Sung Eun, Choi, Jungsoon, Whang, Shin Young, Park, Eun Kyung, Park, Ah Young, Shin, Hyeseon, Chung, Hwan Hoon
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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 . 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%) ( =0.019 or
ISSN:1738-6756
2092-9900
DOI:10.4048/jbc.2016.19.3.316