This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Breast, Mammography, Diagnostic procedure
Authors:
E. Miglio, F. Galati, M. Telesca, V. Casali, M. Nolfi, M. Luciani, F. Pediconi; Rome/IT
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2015/C-1904
Results
DM+DBT significantly increased the number of BIRADS 1,
2 and 5 ,
and reduced the number of BIRADS 0 and 3 of both readers when compared to DM alone (Reader 1: Tab.
1; Reader 2: Tab.2).
DM+DBT also significantly reduced the recall rate for both Reader 1 (DM 78.3% vs DM + DBT 46.5%,
Tab.
1) and Reader 2 (DM 95.3% vs DM + DBT 50.4%,
Tab.2).
The concordance between the readers for the BIRADS classification was moderate (k=0.35) for DM and substantial (k=0.67) for DM+DBT,
Tab.3.
DM+DBT also improved the recall rate concordance (k DM = 0.1 vs k DM + DBT = 0.5) ,
Tab.3.
Tab.
1: Reader 1 resuts
|
DM
|
DM + DTB
|
BI-RADS 0
|
5 (3.9%)
|
2 (1.5%)
|
BI-RADS 1
|
13 (10.1%)
|
28 (21.7%)
|
BI-RADS 2
|
35 (27.1%)
|
53 (42.1%)
|
BI-RADS 3
|
54 (41.9%)
|
10 (7.7%)
|
BI-RADS 4
|
19 (14.7%)
|
14 (10.8%)
|
BI-RADS 5
|
3 (2.3%)
|
22 (17%)
|
RECALL
|
101 (78.3%)
|
60 (46.5%)
|
NO RECALL
|
28 (21.7%)
|
69 (53.5%)
|
|
|
|
Tab.
2: Reader 2 resuts
|
DM
|
DM + DTB
|
BI-RADS 0
|
15 (11.6%)
|
3 (2.3%)
|
BI-RADS 1
|
4 (3.1%)
|
19 (14.7%)
|
BI-RADS 2
|
28 (21.7%)
|
70 (54.3%)
|
BI-RADS 3
|
61 (47.3%)
|
8 (6.2%)
|
BI-RADS 4
|
16 (12.4%)
|
6 (4.6%)
|
BI-RADS 5
|
5 (3.9%)
|
23 (17.8%)
|
RECALL
|
123 (95.3%)
|
65 (50.4%)
|
NO RECALL
|
6 (4.6%)
|
64 (49.6%)
|
Tab.
3: Readers concordance (Cohen's kappa)
|
DM
|
DM + DTB
|
BI-RADS
|
0.35
|
0.67
|
RECALL
|
0.1
|
0.50
|