English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The primary objective of the study was to compare a spiral breast computed tomography system (SBCT) to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for the detection of microcalcifications (MCs) in breast specimens. The secondary objective was to compare various reconstruction modes in SBCT. In total, 54 breast biopsy specimens were examined with mammography as a standard reference, with DBT, and with a dedicated SBCT containing a photon-counting detector. Three different reconstruction modes were applied for SBCT datasets (Recon1 = voxel size (0.15 mm) 3 , smooth kernel; Recon2 = voxel size (0.05 mm) 3 , smooth kernel; Recon3 = voxel size (0.05 mm) 3 , sharp kernel). Sensitivity and specificity of DBT and SBCT for the detection of suspicious MCs were analyzed, and the McNemar test was used for comparisons. Diagnostic confidence of the two readers (Likert Scale 1 = not confident; 5 = completely confident) was analyzed with ANOVA. Regarding detection of MCs, reader 1 had a higher sensitivity for DBT (94.3%) and Recon2 (94.9%) compared to Recon1 (88.5%; p &lt; 0.05), while sensitivity for Recon3 was 92.4%. Respectively, reader 2 had a higher sensitivity for DBT (93.0%), Recon2 (92.4%), and Recon3 (93.0%) compared to Recon1 (86.0%; p &lt; 0.05). Specificities ranged from 84.7-94.9% for both readers ( p &gt; 0.05). The diagnostic confidence of reader 1 was better with SBCT than with DBT (DBT 4.48 ± 0.88, Recon1 4.77 ± 0.66, Recon2 4.89 ± 0.44, and Recon3 4.75 ± 0.72; DBT vs. Recon1/2/3: p &lt; 0.05), while reader 2 found no differences. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of MCs in breast specimens is equal for DBT and SBCT when a small voxel size of (0.05 mm) 3 is used with an equal or better diagnostic confidence for SBCT compared to DBT.

Detection of Microcalcifications in Spiral Breast Computed Tomography with Photon-Counting Detector Is Feasible: A Specimen Study