ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts. @*Materials and Methods@#A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared. @*Results@#A total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40–78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8–19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726;95% CI: 5.7–15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.889). DBT cohort showed a higher AIR than the DM cohort (31.6% [273 of 863; 95% CI: 28.5%–34.9%] vs. 22.4% [387 of 1726; 95% CI: 20.5%–24.5%]; P < 0.001). The sensitivity for both cohorts was 100%. In women with negative findings on DBT or DM, supplemental US yielded similar CDRs in both DBT and DM cohorts (4.0 vs. 3.3 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.803) and higher AIR in the DBT cohort (24.8% [188 of 758; 95% CI: 21.8%–28.0%] vs. 16.9% [257 of 1516; 95% CI: 15.1%–18.9%; P < 0.001). @*Conclusion@#DBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the performance of simulated abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) and full diagnostic (FD)-MRI in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions detected by MRI and investigate the features of discrepant lesions of the two protocols. @*Materials and Methods@#An AB-MRI set with single first postcontrast images was retrospectively obtained from an FD-MRI cohort of 111 lesions (34 malignant, 77 benign) detected by contralateral breast MRI in 111 women (mean age, 49.8. ± 9.8;range, 28–75 years) with recently diagnosed breast cancer. Five blinded readers independently classified the likelihood of malignancy using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments. McNemar tests and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses were performed. The imaging and pathologic features of the discrepant lesions of the two protocols were analyzed. @*Results@#The sensitivity of AB-MRI for lesion characterization tended to be lower than that of FD-MRI for all readers (58.8– 82.4% vs. 79.4–100%), although the findings of only two readers were significantly different (p 0.05). Fifteen percent (5/34) of the cancers were false-negatives on AB-MRI. More suspicious margins or internal enhancement on the delayed phase images were related to the discrepancies. @*Conclusion@#The overall performance of AB-MRI was similar to that of FD-MRI in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. AB-MRI showed lower sensitivity and higher specificity than FD-MRI, as 15% of the cancers were misclassified compared to FD-MRI.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the utility and diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound system (ABUS) with that of handheld ultrasound (HHUS) in evaluating pure non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). @*Materials and Methods@#One hundred twenty-six consecutive MRI-visible pure NME lesions of 122 patients with breast cancer were assessed from April 2016 to March 2017. Two radiologists reviewed the preoperative breast MRI, ABUS, and HHUS images along with mammography (MG) findings. The NME correlation rate and diagnostic performance of ABUS were compared with that of HHUS, and the imaging features associated with ABUS visibility were analyzed. @*Results@#Among 126 pure NME lesions, 100 (79.4%) were malignant and 26 (20.6%) were benign. The overall correlation rate was 87.3% (110/126) in ABUS and 92.9% (117/126) in HHUS. The sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 50% for ABUS and 92% and 42.3% for HHUS, respectively, with no significant differences (p = 0.180 and 0.727, respectively). Malignant NME was more frequently visualized than benign NME lesions on ABUS (93% vs. 65.4%, p = 0.001). Significant factors associated with the visibility of ABUS were the size of NME lesions on MRI (p < 0.001), their distribution pattern (p < 0.001), and microcalcifications on MG (p = 0.027). @*Conclusion@#ABUS evaluation of pure NME lesions on MRI in patients with breast cancer is a useful technique with high visibility, especially in malignant lesions. The diagnostic performance of ABUS was comparable with that of conventional HHUS in evaluating NME lesions.
ABSTRACT
0.05).CONCLUSION: 2-VST of ABUS achieved comparable scan coverage and diagnostic performance to that of conventional 3-VST in women with small breasts.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Breast Neoplasms , Breast , Sensitivity and Specificity , UltrasonographyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the risk of metabolic syndrome (MS) according to alcohol consumption for those subjects showing facial flushing, as well as the absence of facial flushing. METHODS: One thousand two hundred and one males were recruited in the health promotion center of a university hospital. Evaluation of alcohol consumption and facial flushing was assessed via questionnaires and interviews. The criteria for MS were defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria with a modified waist circumference cutoff value (men > or = 90 cm) for Korean subjects. Subjects were divided into three groups according to the amount of alcohol they consume: nondrinkers, moderate drinkers (14 standard drinks per week). They were also separated into two groups according to facial flushing: non-flushers (no occurrence) and flushers (steady occurrence). Factors related to MS were assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: In non-flushing moderate drinkers, the risk of MS did not significantly increase compared to non-drinkers. However in flushing moderate drinkers, there was significant increase (odds ratio [OR], 1.81; confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 3.06) compared to non-drinkers. In non-flushing and flushing heavy drinkers, significant increase (OR, 2.23; CI, 1.23 to 4.04; OR, 2.90; CI, 1.25 to 6.73, respectively) was evident compared to non-drinkers. CONCLUSION: Non-flushing moderate drinkers did not show an increased risk of metabolic syndrome compared to the non-drinkers, but flushing moderate drinkers showed an increased risk of metabolic syndrome compared to non-drinkers.