ECR 2013 Rec: One-to-one comparison between digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using a fully automated software: breast density underestimation on digital breast tomosynthesis varies in different BI-RADS classes #B0688 #SS1302

ECR2013Rec_Blog_Cover_SS1302_B0688

B-0688 One-to-one comparison between digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis using a fully automated software: breast density underestimation on digital breast tomosynthesis varies in different BI-RADS classes

A. Tagliafico, S. Airaldi, F. Cavagnetto, B. Bingotti, S. Tosto, D. Astengo, M. Calabrese | Sunday, March 10, 10:30 – 12:00 / Room F2

Purpose: To compare breast density on digital mammography (FFDM) and tomosynthesis (DBT) according to different BI-RADS classes (four classes from 1 to 4) with an automated software.
Methods and Materials: IRB approval and written informed consent were obtained. Digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography were obtained in the same patient. A total of 160 consecutive patients (mean age years: 50±14; mean BMI: 22 ± 3) were included. One-to-one comparison between FFDM and DBT was made with a fully automated software previously validated. Statistical analysis was performed with two-tailed t-test for paired data using statistical software.
Results: In BI-RADS class 1, digital mammography overestimated breast density of a 16 %. In BI-RADS class 2, digital mammography overestimated breast density of a 11.9%. In BI-RADS class 3, digital mammography overestimated breast density of a 3.5%. In BI-RADS class 4, digital mammography overestimated breast density of a 18.1%. The differences resulted highly statistically significant (p<0.0001). There was a good correlation between BI-RADS categories and the density evaluated with digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (r=0.56, p <0.01 and r=0.48 p<0.01).
Conclusion: Breast density values were underestimated by DBT in comparison to FFDM with a non-linear relationship in the different BI-RADS classes. This data should influence clinical and research studies dealing with breast density as a qualitative biomarker.

Be Sociable, Share!
    02
    Sep 2013
    POSTED BY
    DISCUSSION 0 Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *