0 461

Cited 9 times in

Comparing recall rates following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis to synthetic 2D images and digital mammography on women with breast-conserving surgery

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author김가람-
dc.contributor.author김민정-
dc.contributor.author김은경-
dc.contributor.author문희정-
dc.contributor.author박영진-
dc.contributor.author윤정현-
dc.contributor.author한경화-
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-01T17:31:25Z-
dc.date.available2020-12-01T17:31:25Z-
dc.date.issued2020-11-
dc.identifier.issn0938-7994-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/180312-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the recall rates of digital mammography (DM) and synthetic images after adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in patients with breast-conserving surgery. Methods: From November 2015 to April 2017, 229 women with breast-conserving surgery due to breast cancer who underwent DBT after surgery were included (mean interval, 12.9 ± 1.4 months). All women underwent combo-mode DBT examinations including full-field DM, tomosynthesis, and reconstructed synthetic 2D images. Three board-certified breast radiologists reviewed the images sequentially: synthetic 2D+DBT and, 1 month later, DM and then DM+DBT. Recall rates and the abnormality type causing the recall were calculated and compared for each mammographic modality and breast density. Results: Of the 229 patients included, 230 mammography images were reviewed. One patient (0.4%) developed locoregional recurrences during follow-up (mean duration, 25.8 ± 4.5 months). Recall rates for synthetic 2D+DBT were significantly lower than for DM alone (4.1% (2.6-6.2) vs. 11.6% (9.2-14.5), respectively; p < 0.001). Recall rates did not differ between synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT (4.1% (2.6-6.2) vs. 2.9% (1.9-4.5), respectively; p = 0.234). Recall rates of synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT were significantly lower than those of DM alone, regardless of mammographic breast density (all p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusion: Adding DBT to synthetic 2D images or DM shows significant reduction in recall rates compared with DM alone for women who undergo breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer, regardless of mammographic density. Key points: • Recall rates for synthetic 2D+DBT were significantly lower than those of DM alone (4.1% (2.6-6.2) vs. 11.6% (9.2-14.5), respectively; p < 0.001). • No significant differences were seen in recall rates between synthetic 2D+DBT and DM+DBT (4.1 (2.6-6.2) vs. 2.9 (1.9-4.5), respectively; p = 0.234). • Reader-averaged recall rates after adding DBT to synthetic 2D or DM were significantly lower than those of DM alone, regardless of mammographic breast density (all p < 0.05, respectively).-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherSpringer International-
dc.relation.isPartOfEUROPEAN RADIOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.titleComparing recall rates following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis to synthetic 2D images and digital mammography on women with breast-conserving surgery-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiology (영상의학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJung Hyun Yoon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorEun-Kyung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorGa Ram Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKyunghwa Han-
dc.contributor.googleauthorMin Jung Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorVivian Youngjean Park-
dc.contributor.googleauthorHee Jung Moon-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00330-020-06992-6-
dc.contributor.localIdA00284-
dc.contributor.localIdA00473-
dc.contributor.localIdA00801-
dc.contributor.localIdA01397-
dc.contributor.localIdA01572-
dc.contributor.localIdA02595-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00851-
dc.identifier.eissn1432-1084-
dc.identifier.pmid32529566-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00330-020-06992-6-
dc.subject.keywordBreast-
dc.subject.keywordBreast-conserving surgery-
dc.subject.keywordDigital breast tomosynthesis-
dc.subject.keywordMammography-
dc.subject.keywordSurveillance-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameKim, Ga Ram-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김가람-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김민정-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김은경-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor문희정-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor박영진-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor윤정현-
dc.citation.volume30-
dc.citation.number11-
dc.citation.startPage6072-
dc.citation.endPage6079-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationEUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, Vol.30(11) : 6072-6079, 2020-11-
dc.identifier.rimsid67234-
dc.type.rimsART-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.