Zhenduanxue lilun yu shijian (Aug 2024)
Evaluation of clinical efficacy of full field digital mammography (FFDM) used alone and in combition with digital breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer
Abstract
Objective To compare the detective and diagnostic ability of full field digital mammography (FFDM) alone and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with FFDM (FFDM+DBT) in different types of lesions. Method A total of 389 patients who underwent preoperative mammography in Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from November 2021 to June 2022 were prospectively included in this study. FFDM images and DBT images were obtained from each patient in the Combo mode. All images were interpreted by senior radiologists, who have been involved in breast imaging diagnosis for more than 10 years. Using the pathological results as the gold standard, the consistency between the imaging evaluation and the gold standard was analyzed to evaluate the differences in diagnostic efficacy between FFDM and DBT (FFDM+DBT), and the differences in diagnostic efficacy in different types of lesions. Indice of diagnostic efficacy includes sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), area under curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for diagnosing breast cancer and overall diagnostic ability between FFDM and FFDM+DBT were compared. Results The overall diagnostic capability of FFDM+DBT was significantly improved compared with FFDM alone (P<0.000 1); the specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of FFDM+DBT were significantly higher than FFDM alone (86.96%, 89.11%, 88.15%, 86.54%, 89.45% vs 80.19%, 87.16%, 84.05%, 83.42%, 84.53%) (P<0.05). The AUC of FFDM+DBT diagnostic ROC for breast cancer was significantly higher than FFDM alone (0.906 vs 0.869, P<0.01); the detection rate of masses by FFDM+DBT was significantly higher than that of FFDM alone (62.5% vs 46.55%, P<0.05); the detection rate of structural distortions by FFDM+DBT was significantly higher than that by FFDM alone (11.42% vs 5.17%, P<0.05). The AUC of FFDM+DBT diagnosis for malignant mass lesions was significantly higher than that of FFDM alone (0.9186 vs 0.8759, P=0.004). Conclusions Compared to FFDM FFDM+DBT examination demonstrates a superior advantage in displaying breast masses and related structural distortions, with higher diagnostic efficiency for differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.
Keywords