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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast enhanced breast CT compared to digital breast tomosynthesis and mammography. | LitMetric

Objective: Compare conspicuity of suspicious breast lesions on contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT (CEbCT), tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM).

Methods: 100 females with BI-RADS 4/5 lesions underwent CEbCT and/or DBT prior to biopsy in this IRB approved, HIPAA compliant study. Two breast radiologists adjudicated lesion conspicuity scores (CS) for each modality independently. Data are shown as mean CS ±standard deviation. Two-sided -test was used to determine significance between two modalities within each subgroup. Multiple comparisons were controlled by the false-discovery rate set to 5%.

Results: 50% of studied lesions were biopsy-confirmed malignancies. Malignant masses were more conspicuous on CEbCT than on DBT or DM (9.7 ±0.5, = 25; 6.8 ± 3.1, = 15; 6.7 ± 3.0, = 27; < 0.05). Malignant calcifications were equally conspicuous on all three modalities (CEbCT 8.7 ± 0.8, = 18; DBT 8.5 ± 0.6, = 15; DM 8.8 ± 0.7, = 23; = NS). Benign masses were equally conspicuous on CEbCT (6.6 ± 4.1, = 22); DBT (6.4 ± 3.8, = 17); DM (5.9 ± 3.6, = 24; = NS). Benign calcifications CS were similar between DBT (8.5 ± 1.0, = 17) and DM (8.8 ± 0.8, = 26; = NS) but less conspicuous on CEbCT (4.0 ± 2.9, = 25, < 0.001). 55 females were imaged with all modalities. Results paralleled the entire cohort. 69%( = 62) of females imaged by CEbCT had dense breasts. Benign/malignant lesion CSs in dense/non-dense categories were 4.8 ± 3.7, = 33, 6.0 ± 3.9, = 14, = 0.35; 9.2 ± 0.9, = 29 vs. 9.4 ± 0.7, = 14; = 0.29, respectively.

Conclusion: Malignant masses are more conspicuous on CEbCT than DM or DBT. Malignant microcalcifications are equally conspicuous on all three modalities. Benign calcifications remain better visualized by DM and DBT than with CEbCT. We observed no differences in benign masses on all modalities. CS of both benign and malignant lesions were independent of breast density.

Advances In Knowledge: CEbCT is a promising diagnostic imaging modality for suspicious breast lesions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6580915PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20181034DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conspicuous cebct
16
suspicious breast
12
breast lesions
12
equally conspicuous
12
cebct
10
conspicuity suspicious
8
breast
8
dbt
8
malignant masses
8
masses conspicuous
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!