A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. | LitMetric

Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.

Clin Radiol

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea; Severance Check-up, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Published: December 2013

Aim: To compare the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer.

Materials And Methods: Lesion sizes of breast cancers on DBT and FFDM images were independently evaluated by breast radiologists. Each lesion was flagged as either mis-sized or not depending on whether the assessment of size at imaging was within 1 cm of the lesion size at surgery. Additional analyses were made by mammographic parenchymal density and by lesion size, using 2 cm as the boundary to separate the two subgroups. Statistical comparisons were performed using a repeated measures linear model on the percent mis-sized. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: The dataset included 173 malignant breast lesions (mean size 23.8 mm, 43% of lesions were ≤2 cm in size) in 169 patients, two-thirds of which had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Overall, the percentage of lesions mis-sized at DBT was significantly lower than at FFDM (19% versus 29%, p = 0.003). There was significantly less mis-sizing at DBT in both heterogeneously dense breasts (11.1% difference between DBT and FFDM, p = 0.016) and extremely dense breasts (15.8% difference, p = 0.024). DBT also had significantly less mis-sizing than FFDM in the subgroup of lesions that were ≤2 cm in size (14.7% difference, p = 0.005).

Conclusion: DBT was significantly superior to FFDM for the evaluation of lesion size overall, and specifically for small lesions and for lesions in dense breasts. The superiority of DBT versus FFDM increased with parenchymal density.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.07.006DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

dense breasts
16
lesion size
12
extent breast
8
digital breast
8
breast tomosynthesis
8
full-field digital
8
digital mammography
8
dbt
8
dbt ffdm
8
parenchymal density
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!