This single center study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the group of patients with breast American College of Radiology (ACR) categories C and D as well as A and B with FFDM. The study involved 297 patients who underwent ABUS and FFDM. Breast types C and D were determined in 40% of patients with FFDM and low- energy CEM. CEM was performed on 76 patients. Focal lesions were found in 131 patients, of which 115 were histopathologically verified. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 40 from 48 with ABUS, 13 with FFDM and 21 with CEM. Compliance in determining the number of foci was 82% for FFDM and 91% for both CEM and ABUS. In breast types C and D, 72% of all lesions were found with ABUS, 56% with CEM and 29% with FFDM ( = 0.008, = 0.000); all invasive cancers were diagnosed with ABUS, 83% with CEM and 59% with FFDM ( = 0.000, = 0.023); 100% DCIS were diagnosed with ABUS, 93% with CEM and 59% with FFDM. The size of lesions from histopathology in breast ACR categories A and B was 14-26 mm, while in breast categories C and D was 11-37 mm. In breast categories C and D, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 78.05, 85.37, 92.68; specificity: 40, 13.33, 8.33; PPV (positive predictive value): 78.05, 72.92, 77.55; NPV (negative predictive value): 40, 25, 25, accuracy: 67.86, 66.07, 73.58. In breast categories A and B, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 81.25, 93.75, 93.48; specificity: 18.18, 18.18, 16.67; PPV: 81.25, 83.33, 89.58; NPV: 18.18, 40, 25; accuracy: 69.49, 79.66, 84.62. The sensitivity of the combination of FFDM and ABUS was 100 for all types of breast categories; the accuracy was 75 in breast types C and D and 81.36 in breast types A and B. The study confirms the predominance of C and D breast anatomy types and the low diagnostic performance of FFDM within that group and indicates ABUS and CEM as potential additive methods in breast cancer diagnostics.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10741119PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11123226DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

abus ffdm
16
breast types
16
breast categories
16
breast
15
ffdm
13
diagnostic performance
12
ffdm cem
12
cem
11
abus
11
comparative analysis
8

Similar Publications

Baseline Performance of Ultrasound-Based Strategies in Breast Cancer Screening Among Chinese Women.

Acad Radiol

December 2024

Department of Cancer Epidemiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University & Henan Cancer Hospital, Henan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Zhengzhou, China (H.F.X., H.W., Y.L., X.Y.W., X.L.G., H.W.L., R.H.K., Q.C., S.Z.L., L.W.G., L.Y.Z., Y.L.Q., S.K.Z.). Electronic address:

Rationale And Objective: There is a notable absence of robust evidence on the efficacy of ultrasound-based breast cancer screening strategies, particularly in populations with a high prevalence of dense breasts. Our study addresses this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of such strategies in Chinese women, thereby enriching the evidence base for identifying the most efficacious screening approaches for women with dense breast tissue.

Methods: Conducted from October 2018 to August 2022 in Central China, this prospective cohort study enrolled 8996 women aged 35-64 years, divided into two age groups (35-44 and 45-64 years).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

This single center study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the group of patients with breast American College of Radiology (ACR) categories C and D as well as A and B with FFDM. The study involved 297 patients who underwent ABUS and FFDM. Breast types C and D were determined in 40% of patients with FFDM and low- energy CEM.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

BACKGROUND This retrospective study from a single center aimed to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) vs automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the identification and characterization of suspicious breast lesions in 117 patients who underwent core-needle biopsy (CNB) of the breast. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study involved a group of 301 women. Every patient underwent FFDM followed by ABUS, which were assessed in concordance with BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) classification.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the value of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the diagnosis of breast cancer compared to FFDM associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Methods: This retrospective study included 50 female patients with a denser framework of connective tissue fibers, characteristic of young women who underwent FFDM, DBT, handheld ultrasound (HHUS), and ABUS between January 2017 and October 2018. The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of FFDM+ABUS were 81.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

In our study, we added a three-dimensional automated breast ultrasound (3D ABUS) to mammography to evaluate the performance and cancer detection rate of mammography alone or with the addition of 3D prone ABUS in women with dense breasts. Our prospective observational study was based on the screening of 1165 asymptomatic women with dense breasts who selected independent of risk factors. The results evaluated include the cancers detected between June 2017 and February 2019, and all surveys were subjected to a double reading.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

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!