国产数字乳腺断层摄影在乳腺癌筛查中的初步研究

目的 初步探讨国产低剂量数字乳腺断层摄影(DBT)在女性体检乳腺癌筛查中的应用价值。方法 前瞻性搜集行乳腺DBT筛查患者的基本资料近600例,由两名高年资放射科医师观察其既往常规全数字化乳腺X线摄影(FFDM)图像和DBT及融合二维(SM)图像,记录图像分型、病灶分类及数据系统(BI-RADS)分类结果。结果 共纳入573例患者资料。DBT+SM图像与常规FFDM图像的BI-RADS分级诊断比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.0125)。DBT+SM图像与常规FFDM图像的病灶筛查检出率比较,在肿块及结构扭曲方面,病灶检出率差异有统计学意义(P<0.0125),在钙化、腋窝淋巴结、非对称性改变、相关征象等方面,二者检出率差异无统计学意义(P>0.0125)。DBT+SM图像与常规FFDM图像对于肿块边缘及形态的检出差异无统计学意义(P>0.0125),对钙化形态的检出差异有统计学意义(P<0.0125)。结论 低剂量DBT+SM在女性乳腺癌筛查中对乳腺病变的总体诊断效能与常规FFDM相当,在显示肿块病变、结构扭曲、钙化形态及分布方面的效能优于常规FFDM,且辐...     

数字乳腺断层X线成像技术在乳腺癌筛查中的应用

【摘要】乳腺影像检查是降低乳腺癌死亡率的有效方法,数字乳腺断层融合X 线成像（DBT）作为近年来新出现的影像成像技术,大大提高了乳腺癌筛查的敏感度和特异度。本文就DBT与传统乳腺X线摄影检查的对比研究、在致密型与非致密型乳腺中的应用、诊断早期与浸润性乳腺癌的效能以及其目前存在的局限性等方面进行综述,旨在提高对乳腺癌的诊断,为DBT技术的发展实践提供策略。     

数字乳腺X线摄影、数字乳腺断层摄影及合成X线成像技术在乳腺癌检查中的应用

<正>乳腺癌是女性常见的恶性肿瘤之一,其发病率呈逐年上升的趋势^[1]。目前,乳腺X线摄影（MG）仍是乳腺癌早期诊断的有效手段之一。其中数字乳腺X线摄影（DM）是临床上最常用的影像技术,已经成为乳腺癌筛查和诊断的首选方式。同时,数字乳腺断层摄影（DBT）及合成X线成像（SM）技术也广泛应用于临床。本文通过比较DM、DBT和SM在技术和诊断上的优势及不足,旨在选择恰当乳腺检查技术,充分发挥各自优势,有效提高乳腺癌的诊断和筛查准确率。     

数字乳腺断层摄影在乳腺筛查中的应用进展

目前全数字化乳腺摄影（full-field digital mammography, FFDM）仍是乳腺癌早期发现、早期诊断的首选检查方法。而数字乳腺断层摄影技术能够克服常规FFDM中重叠纤维腺体组织干扰诊断这一主要局限性,增强对乳腺病变的可见性,显著提高诊断的敏感性和特异性,有效地降低了召回率。本文重点对于DBT在乳腺筛查中的优势及局限性进行综述。     

数字乳腺断层摄影诊断乳腺癌现状

乳腺癌严重威胁女性健康,乳腺摄影是早期检出肿瘤的方法之一。数字乳腺断层摄影（DBT）能够克服全数字化乳腺摄影（FFDM）因组织重叠而影响病变观察的问题,降低复检率,减少不必要的活检,提高癌灶的检出率。对于致密型乳腺,DBT可以减少＂假阳性＂的检出,降低乳腺癌筛查的成本,提高诊断的准确性。     

数字乳腺断层成像与磁共振成像对乳腺肿瘤的诊断价值

【摘要】目的：通过对比全数字化乳腺摄影（FFDM）、数字乳腺三维成像（DBT）与MRI对乳腺肿瘤的鉴别诊断能力,评价不同影像检查方法对乳腺癌的诊断价值。方法：回顾性分析253例临床经病理证实为乳腺病变的女性患者的病例资料,均采用FFDM、DBT及MRI检查。观察肿瘤大小、形态、边缘、有无钙化等,强化方式、早期强化率（EER）、时间-信号强度曲线（TIC）及表观扩散系数（ADC）,根据乳腺影像报告数据系统（BI-RADS）进行分类,以病理结果为金标准,采用受试者操作特性曲线（ROC）分析不同检查方法对乳腺癌的诊断效能,评价单纯的FFDM、DBT、MRI对乳腺癌的诊断准确性。结果：253例乳腺病变患者中良性病灶112例,恶性病灶141例。FFDM、DBT及MRI诊断乳腺癌的ROC 曲线下面积分别是0.826、0.897、0.884;诊断其敏感度分别为84.2%、92.3%、95.6%;特异度分别为82.5%、85.5%、84.5%。DBT及MRI 诊断乳腺癌的曲线下面积大于FFDM,差异有统计学意义（P<0.001）,DBT与MRI诊断乳腺癌的曲线下面积差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：DBT及MRI较FFDM检查能够提高乳腺癌的诊断效能,DBT和MRI 对乳腺病灶的检出及诊断效能相近,但DBT更为经济适用,且禁忌证相对较少。     

数字乳腺断层合成摄影联合全屏数字化乳腺X线摄影及超声对乳腺结构扭曲病变的影像诊断价值

目的 探讨数字乳腺断层合成摄影(DBT)联合全屏数字化乳腺X线摄影(FFDM)及超声在乳腺结构扭曲良恶性病变的影像征象,分析结构扭曲病变的诊断价值。方法 选取术前行乳腺FFDM、 DBT、超声且表现为结构扭曲、有病理结果的病例154例,对结构扭曲良恶性病变征象及不同检查方式诊断效能行统计学分析。结果 乳腺FFDM联合DBT良恶性病变在结构扭曲形态、结构扭曲中心密度有统计学差异;乳腺超声良恶性病变在病变边缘、后方回声、钙化、血流有统计学差异(P<0.05)。FFDM联合DBT敏感度及特异度均大于FFDM、超声,约登指数最高,三种检查方式的受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线对比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 通过结构扭曲病变不同影像征象分析,进一步判断及分析病变的良恶性;使用FFDM联合DBT结构扭曲病变的检出率提高。     

数字乳腺断层摄影联合合成2D图像与数字乳腺X线摄影的多中心乳腺癌筛查评价

正摘要在美国,数字乳腺断层摄影(DBT)联合数字乳腺X线摄影(DM)取代单独DM越来越多地被用于乳腺癌筛查。合成2D影像(SM)联合DBT的前期筛查结果表明没有辐射     

数字化乳腺断层合成摄影及其联合人工智能技术在乳腺癌筛查中的研究进展

乳腺癌是我国女性发病率第一的恶性肿瘤。由于我国女性乳腺多属于致密型乳腺, 而乳腺X线摄影筛查对致密型乳腺中非钙化病变检出灵敏度较低, 数字化乳腺断层合成摄影(DBT)虽然能够减少致密乳腺组织中对病变的掩盖, 提高乳腺癌的检出率并降低召回率, 但DBT具有图像数量多导致医师阅片时间延长的局限性。基于此, 人工智能技术联合DBT应用于乳腺癌筛查应用前景广泛。该文就DBT以及DBT联合人工智能技术在乳腺癌筛查中的应用价值和研究进展进行综述。     

数字乳腺断层摄影诊断乳腺癌现状

乳腺癌严重威胁女性健康,乳腺摄影是早期检出肿瘤的方法之一。数字乳腺断层摄影(DBT)能够克服全数字化乳腺摄影(FFDM)因组织重叠而影响病变观察的问题,降低复检率,减少不必要的活检,提高癌灶的检出率。对于致密型乳腺,DBT可以减少"假阳性"的检出,降低乳腺癌筛查的成本,提高诊断的准确性。     

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Complements Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography for Secondary Examination of Breast Cancer

Objective:To compare the performance of two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (SM/DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) including women with DBT (FFDM/DBT) undergoing secondary examination for breast cancer.Material and Methods:Out of 186 breasts, including 52 with breast cancers; FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT findings were interpreted by four expert clinicians. Radiation doses of FFDM, SM/DBT, and FFDM/DBT were determined. Inter-rater reliabilities were analyzed between readers and between FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT by Cohen’s Kappa coefficients. Diagnostic accuracy was compared between SM/DBT and FFDM/DBT by Fisher’s exact tests. Two representative cancer cases were examined for differences in the interpretation between FFDM and SM.Results:A higher radiation dose was required in FFDM/DBT than in SM/DBT (median: 1.50 mGy vs. 2.95 mGy). Inter-rater reliabilities were similar between both readers and modalities. Both sensitivity and specificity were equivalent in FFDM/DBT and SM/DBT (p = 0.874–1.00). Compared with FFDM, SM did not clearly show abnormalities with subtle margins in the two representative cancer cases.Conclusion:SM/DBT had a similar performance to FFDM/DBT in detecting breast abnormalities but requires less radiation. DBT complements SM to improve accuracy to a level equivalent to that of FFDM. Taken together, SM/DBT may be a good substitute for FFDM/DBT for the secondary examination of breast cancer.     

The added benefit of digital breast tomosynthesis in second breast cancer detection among treated breast cancer patients

Objectives

We aimed to compare the recall rate (RR) and the cancer detection rate (CDR) of combined full field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (FFDM?+?DBT) to those of full field digital mammography (FFDM) alone in breast cancer survivors.

Digital breast tomosynthesis: Image acquisition principles and artifacts

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new technology that is being used more frequently for both breast cancer screening and diagnostic purposes and its utilization is likely to continue to increase over time. The major benefit of tomosynthesis over 2D-mammography is that it allows radiologists to view breast tissue using a three-dimensional dataset and improves diagnostic accuracy by facilitating differentiation of potentially malignant lesions from overlap of normal tissue. In addition, image processing techniques allow reconstruction of two dimensional synthesized mammograms (SM) from DBT data, which eliminates the need for acquiring two dimensional full field digital mammography (FFDM) in addition to tomosynthesis and thereby reduces the radiation dose. DBT systems incorporate a moveable x-ray tube, which moves in a prescribed way over a limited angular range to obtain three-dimensional data of patients' breasts, and utilize reconstruction algorithms. The limited angular range for DBT leads to incomplete sampling of the object, and a movable x-ray tube prolongs the imaging time, both of which make DBT and SM susceptible to artifacts. Understanding the etiology of these artifacts should help radiologists in reducing the number of artifacts and in differentiating a true finding from one related to an artifact, thus potentially decreasing recall rates and false positive rates. This is becoming especially important with increased incorporation of DBT in practices around the world. The goal of this article is to review the physics principles behind DBT systems and use these principles to explain the origin of artifacts that can limit diagnostic evaluation.     

Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography

Now, full field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in diagnosis of breast cancer. With the development of FFDM, the radiation dose delivered to the patients involved in an imaging protocol is of utmost concern. Here, we analyzed the average glandular dose (AGD) and entrance surface exposure (ESE) of 1397 patients (6008 images) who underwent mammographic examinations by FFDM in three modes with automatic optimization of parameters (AOP), namely STD for standard mode, CNT for contrast mode and DOSE for dose mode. In addition, exposure factors including kVp, tube loading (mAs), and target/filter combination were evaluated. As a result, the patient dose was sorted as CNT>STD>DOSE. The dose difference among the three AOP modes was mainly attributed to the selection of mAs. The AGD and breast compressed thickness were well correlated in STD and DOSE modes. However, the correlation between CNT-delivered AGD and breast compressed thickness was dependent on the range of the breast thickness and patient age. The findings on dose and exposure characteristics of the three AOP modes get useful message of patient dose in the acquisition of FFDM.     

两种摄影模式下的乳腺X射线摄影的剂量比较

目的 对比分析数字乳腺X射线断层融合成像和全数字化乳腺X射线摄影两种模式下乳腺X射线摄影剂量比较,以及平均腺体剂量与乳腺密度、压迫厚度的关系。方法 回顾性收集2020年10月至2022年5月在昆明医科大学第一附属医院行数字乳腺X射线断层融合成像（DBT）的乳腺疾病患者以及同时期在本院行全数字化乳腺X射线摄影（FFDM）的体检人群的乳腺X射线摄影资料,记录压迫厚度、压迫力度及平均腺体剂量（AGD）,由两名从事乳腺影像诊断的高年资医师依照2013年ACR BI-RADS MAMMOGRAPHY对乳腺腺体密度进行分型,分为a （腺体组织<25%）、b （腺体组织约25%~50%）、c （腺体组织约50%~75%）、d （腺体组织>75%）4型,分析在FFDM、DBT模式下,不同腺体密度、不同压迫厚度与AGD的关系。结果 无论是FFDM还是DBT模式,随着乳腺腺体密度增加AGD逐渐增加,AGD_a型b_型c_型d_型,差异有统计学意义（F=861.63、617.83、330.33、451.45、290.47,P<0.001）。行FFDM的c、d型乳腺,压迫厚度为31~40 mm时AGD较低。在相同压迫厚度下,a、b、c、d型乳腺AGD_DBT均高于AGD_FFDM,差异有统计学意义（a型：t=-17.88、-42.19、-29.90、-28.14、-24.95,P<0.001;b型：t=-49.18、-35.94、-27.25、-28.37、-24.10,P<0.001;c型：t=-11.78、-32.90、-23.13、-20.51、-18.24,P<0.001;d型：t=-7.94、-26.24、-17.24、-15.44、-13.81,P<0.001）,乳腺厚度为61~70 mm的d型乳腺AGD两者差异最大,为1.07 mGy （95%CI：0.92~1.22）。AGD与乳腺密度、压迫厚度正相关,且FFDM的相关性强于DBT。结论 乳腺X射线摄影AGD与乳腺密度、压迫厚度正相关,与FFDM相比,DBT会增加AGD,但AGD增幅在安全范围内,临床工作中行DBT检查对乳腺疾病患者有益。     

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with soft-copy reading is more complex than screen-film mammography (SFM) with hard-copy reading. The aim of this study was to compare inter- and intraobserver variability in SFM versus FFDM of paired mammograms from a breast cancer screening program. Six radiologists interpreted mammograms of 232 cases obtained with both techniques, including 46 cancers, 88 benign lesions, and 98 normals. Image interpretation included BI-RADS categories. A case consisted of standard two-view mammograms of one breast. Images were scored in two sessions separated by 5 weeks. Observer variability was substantial for SFM as well as for FFDM, but overall there was no significant difference between the observer variability at SFM and FFDM. Mean kappa values were lower, indicating less agreement, for microcalcifications compared with masses. The lower observer agreement for microcalcifications, and especially the low intraobserver concordance between the two imaging techniques for three readers, was noticeable. The level of observer agreement might be an indicator of radiologist performance and could confound studies designed to separate diagnostic differences between the two imaging techniques. The results of our study confirm the need for proper training for radiologists starting FFDM with soft-copy reading in breast cancer screening. Presented at ECR, Wien 2006.     

Comparing Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography

ObjectiveCompare diagnostic performance of screening full-field digital mammography (FFDM), a hybrid FFDM and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) environment, and DBT only.Materials and MethodsThis institutional review board–approved, retrospective study consisted of all patients undergoing screening mammography at an urban academic medical center and outpatient imaging facility between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. We used the electronic health record data warehouse to extract report data and patient demographics. A validated natural language processing algorithm extracted BI-RADS score from each report. An institutional cancer registry identified cancer diagnoses. Primary outcomes of recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) were calculated for three periods: FFDM-only environment, hybrid environment, and DBT-only environment. A χ² test was used to compare recall rate, CDR, and PPV1.ResultsA total of 179,028 screening mammograms comprised the study cohort: 41,818 (23.3%) during the FFDM-only period, 83,125 (46.4%) during the hybrid period, and 54,084 (30.2%) during the DBT-only period. Recall rates were 10.4% (4,279 of 41,280) for the FFDM-only period, 10.6% (8,761 of 82,917) for the hybrid period, and 10.8% (5,850 of 54,020) for the DBT-only period (P = .96). CDR (cancers per 1,000 examinations) was 2.6 per 1,000, 4.9 per 1,000, and 6.0 per 1,000 for FFDM only, hybrid, and DBT only, respectively (P < .01). PPV1s (number of cancers per number of recalls) were 2.5% for the FFDM-only period, 4.6% for the hybrid period, and 5.6% for the DBT-only period (P < .01).ConclusionRecall rates were not significantly different within the three periods in the breast imaging practice. However, PPV1 and CDR were significantly higher with DBT only.     

Lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography compared to full field digital screening mammography

ObjectiveTo compare lesion conspicuity on synthetic screening mammography (SM) plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT.Materials and methodsSeven breast imagers each prospectively evaluated 107–228 screening mammograms (FFDM, DBT, and SM; total 1206 examinations) over 12 weeks in sets of 10–50 consecutive examinations. Interpretation sessions alternated as follows: SM + DBT, then FFDM, or FFDM + DBT, then SM. Lesion conspicuity on SM versus FFDM (equal/better versus less) was assessed using proportions with 95% confidence intervals. DBT-only findings were excluded.ResultsOverall 1082 of 1206 (89.7%) examinations were assessed BI-RADS 1/2, and 124 of 1206 (10.3%) assessed BI-RADS 0. There were 409 evaluated findings, including 134 masses, 119 calcifications, 72 asymmetries, 49 architectural distortion, and 35 focal asymmetries. SM conspicuity compared to FFDM conspicuity for lesions was rated 1) masses: 77 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, 57 (43%) less conspicuous; 2) asymmetries/focal asymmetries: 61 (57%) equal or more conspicuous, and 46 (43%) less conspicuous; 3) architectural distortion: 46 (94%) equal or more conspicuous, 3 (6%) less conspicuous; 4) calcifications: 115 (97%) equal or more conspicuous, 4 (3%) less conspicuous. SM had better conspicuity than FFDM for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.ConclusionCompared to FFDM, SM has better conspicuity for calcifications and architectural distortion and similar conspicuity for most masses and asymmetries.     

Double reading of automated breast ultrasound with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of double reading automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) when added to full field digital mammography (FFDM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening.MethodsFrom April 2014 to June 2015, 124 women with dense breasts and intermediate to high breast cancer risk were recruited for screening with FFDM, DBT, and ABUS. Readers used FFDM and DBT in clinical practice and received ABUS training prior to study initiation. FFDM or DBT were first interpreted alone by two independent readers and then with ABUS. All recalled women underwent diagnostic workup with at least one year of follow-up. Recall rates were compared using the sign test; differences in outcomes were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.ResultsOf 121 women with complete follow-up, all had family (35.5%) or personal (20.7%) history of breast cancer, or both (43.8%). Twenty-four women (19.8%) were recalled by at least one modality. Recalls increased from 5.0% to 13.2% (p = 0.002) when ABUS was added to FFDM and from 3.3% to 10.7% (p = 0.004) when ABUS was added to DBT. Findings recalled by both readers were more likely to result in a recommendation for short term follow-up imaging or tissue biopsy compared to findings recalled by only one reader (100% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.041). The cancer detection rate was 8.3 per 1000 screens (1/121); mode of detection: FFDM and DBT.ConclusionsAdding ABUS significantly increased the recall rate of both FFDM and DBT screening. Double reading of ABUS during early phase adoption may reduce false positive recalls.     

Digital breast tomosynthesis: sensitivity for cancer in younger symptomatic women

Objective:Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has limited sensitivity for cancer in younger women with denser breasts. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) can reduce the risk of cancer being obscured by overlying tissue. The primary study aim was to compare the sensitivity of FFDM, DBT and FFDM-plus-DBT in women under 60 years old with clinical suspicion of breast cancer.Methods:This multicentre study recruited 446 patients from UK breast clinics. Participants underwent both standard FFDM and DBT. A blinded retrospective multireader study involving 12 readers and 300 mammograms (152 malignant and 148 benign cases) was conducted.Results:Sensitivity for cancer was 86.6% with FFDM [95% CI (85.2–88.0%)], 89.1% with DBT [95% CI (88.2–90%)], and 91.7% with FFDM+DBT [95% CI (90.7–92.6%)]. In the densest breasts, the maximum sensitivity increment with FFDM +DBT over FFDM alone was 10.3%, varying by density measurement method. Overall specificity was 81.4% with FFDM [95% CI (80.5–82.3%)], 84.6% with DBT [95% CI (83.9–85.3%)], and 79.6% with FFDM +DBT [95% CI (79.0–80.2%)]. No differences were detected in accuracy of tumour measurement in unifocal cases.Conclusions:Where available, DBT merits first-line use in the under 60 age group in symptomatic breast clinics, particularly in women known to have very dense breasts.Advances in knowledge:This study is one of very few to address the accuracy of DBT in symptomatic rather than screening patients. It quantifies the diagnostic gains of DBT in direct comparison with standard digital mammography, supporting informed decisions on appropriate use of DBT in this population.