Analysis of the diagnostic efficacy of digital mammography
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2016-12-2-10-12
Abstract
In the paper we analyzed radiographic findings related by the radiologist to BI-RADS 4 (68 patients) and BI-RADS 5 (38 patients) depending on the nature of histologic findings. Digital mammography allows to perform a more accurate estimation of pathological process in the breast due to computer image processing. This can improve diagnosis of early breast cancer. In analyzing the findings referred to BI-RADS 4 we noted significantly much higher (up to 20.59 ± 4.89 %) detection rate of breast cancer compared to analog mammography. Breast cancer was confirmed histologically in 97.37 ± 6.16 % of patients with BI-RADS 5. Definable node formation was the leading symptom in BI-RADS 5 cases and was observed in 26 patients (68.42 ± 6.14%). An average node size was 2.12 ± 0.19 cm, which corresponds to T2 category.
About the Authors
V. I. Apanasevich
LLC “Breast Center”;
State autonomous healthcare institution “Regional Clinical Center for specialized types of medical care”;
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Education «Pacific State Medical University» of Russian Ministry of Health
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
L. A. Kulyk
LLC “Breast Center”;
State autonomous healthcare institution “Regional Clinical Center for specialized types of medical care”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. V. Roshchina
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Education «Pacific State Medical University» of Russian Ministry of Health
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
O. M. Zagrudinova
State budgetary healthcare institution “Primorsky Regional Oncological Center”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
G. A. Shtitelman
State budgetary healthcare institution “Primorsky Regional Oncological Center”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. S. Shevchuk
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher Education «Pacific State Medical University» of Russian Ministry of Health
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Rouëss J., Sancho-Garnier H. Organized breast cancer screening. Bull Acad Natl Med 2014;198(2):369–86.
2. Kim W.H., Chang J.M., Moon H.G. et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performance оf digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers. Eur Radiol 2016;26(6): 1556–64. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015- 3998-3.
3. Kovacs M.D., Reicher J.J., Grotts J.F. et al. Evaluation of lossy data compression in primary interpretation for full-field digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204(3):570–5. DOI: 10.2214/ AJR.14.12912.
4. Preibsch H., Siegmann-Luz K.C. Digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiologe 2015;55(1): 59–67. DOI: 10.1007/s00117-014-2753-0.
5. Nishikawa R.M., Schmidt R.A., Linver M.N. et al. Clinically missed cancer: how effectively can radiologists use computer-aided detection? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198(3):708–16. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6423.
6. BI-RADS – ultrasound. 2nd edn. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas. 5th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013.
7. Brodersen J., Siersma V.D. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med 2013;11(2):106–15. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1466.
Review
For citations:
Apanasevich V.I., Kulyk L.A., Roshchina E.V., Zagrudinova O.M., Shtitelman G.A., Shevchuk V.S. Analysis of the diagnostic efficacy of digital mammography. Tumors of female reproductive system. 2016;12(2):10-12. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2016-12-2-10-12
Views:
963
Email this article 