The skeletons of free distributive lattices

AbstractThe skeletons of free distributive lattices are studied by methods of formal concept analysis; in particular, a specific closure system of sublattices is elaborated to clarify the structure of the skeletons. Up to five generators, the skeletons are completely described

One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection : do we need more?

Purpose: To compare the performance of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (1v-DBT) to that of three other protocols combining DBT and mammography (DM) for breast cancer detection. Materials and methods: Six radiologists, three experienced with 1v-DBT in screening, retrospectively reviewed 181 cases (76 malignant, 50 benign, 55 normal) in two sessions. First, they scored sequentially: 1v-DBT (medio-lateral oblique, MLO), 1v-DBT (MLO) + 1v-DM (cranio-caudal, CC) and two-view DM + DBT (2v-DM+2v-DBT). The second session involved only 2v-DM. Lesions were scored using BI-RADS® and level of suspiciousness (1–10). Sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and jack-knife alternative free-response ROC (JAFROC) were computed. Results: On average, 1v-DBT was non-inferior to any of the other protocols in terms of JAFROC figure-of-merit, area under ROC curve, sensitivity or specificity (p>0.391). While readers inexperienced with 1v-DBT screening improved their sensitivity when adding more images (69–79 %, p=0.019), experienced readers showed similar sensitivity (76 %) and specificity (70 %) between 1v-DBT and 2v-DM+2v-DBT (p=0.482). Subanalysis by lesion type and breast density showed no difference among modalities. Conclusion: Detection performance with 1v-DBT is not statistically inferior to 2v-DM or to 2v-DM+2v-DBT; its use as a stand-alone modality might be sufficient for readers experienced with this protocol. Key points: • One-view breast tomosynthesis is not inferior to two-view digital mammography.• One-view DBT is not inferior to 2-view DM plus 2-view DBT.• Training may lead to 1v-DBT being sufficient for screening

Multireader Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrafast Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening

Objectives Breast cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has limited accessibility due to high costs of breast MRI. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI can be acquired within 2 minutes. We aimed to assess whether screening performance of breast radiologist using an ultrafast breast MRI-only screening protocol is as good as performance using a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol (FDP). Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this study, and waived the need for informed consent. Between January 2012 and June 2014, 1791 consecutive breast cancer screening examinations from 954 women with a lifetime risk of more than 20% were prospectively collected. All women were scanned using a 3 T protocol interleaving ultrafast breast MRI acquisitions in a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol consisting of standard dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging, and T2-weighted imaging. Subsequently, a case set was created including all biopsied screen-detected lesions in this period (31 malignant and 54 benign) and 116 randomly selected normal cases with more than 2 years of follow-up. Prior examinations were included when available. Seven dedicated breast radiologists read all 201 examinations and 153 available priors once using the FDP and once using ultrafast breast MRI only in 2 counterbalanced and crossed-over reading sessions. Results For reading the FDP versus ultrafast breast MRI alone, sensitivity was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.90) versus 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) (P = 0.50), specificity was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) versus 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) (P = 0.002), positive predictive value was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.36-0.45) versus 0.45 (95% CI, 0.41-0.50) (P = 0.14), and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) versus 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) (P = 0.83). Ultrafast breast MRI reading was 22.8% faster than reading FDP (P < 0.001). Interreader agreement is significantly better for ultrafast breast MRI (κ = 0.730; 95% CI, 0.699-0.761) than for the FDP (κ = 0.665; 95% CI, 0.633-0.696). Conclusions Breast MRI screening using only an ultrafast breast MRI protocol is noninferior to screening with an FDP and may result in significantly higher screening specificity and shorter reading time

Multireader Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrafast Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening

Objectives Breast cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has limited accessibility due to high costs of breast MRI. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI can be acquired within 2 minutes. We aimed to assess whether screening performance of breast radiologist using an ultrafast breast MRI-only screening protocol is as good as performance using a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol (FDP). Materials and Methods The institutional review board approved this study, and waived the need for informed consent. Between January 2012 and June 2014, 1791 consecutive breast cancer screening examinations from 954 women with a lifetime risk of more than 20% were prospectively collected. All women were scanned using a 3 T protocol interleaving ultrafast breast MRI acquisitions in a full multiparametric diagnostic MRI protocol consisting of standard dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging, and T2-weighted imaging. Subsequently, a case set was created including all biopsied screen-detected lesions in this period (31 malignant and 54 benign) and 116 randomly selected normal cases with more than 2 years of follow-up. Prior examinations were included when available. Seven dedicated breast radiologists read all 201 examinations and 153 available priors once using the FDP and once using ultrafast breast MRI only in 2 counterbalanced and crossed-over reading sessions. Results For reading the FDP versus ultrafast breast MRI alone, sensitivity was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.90) versus 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) (P = 0.50), specificity was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79) versus 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) (P = 0.002), positive predictive value was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.36-0.45) versus 0.45 (95% CI, 0.41-0.50) (P = 0.14), and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) versus 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96) (P = 0.83). Ultrafast breast MRI reading was 22.8% faster than reading FDP (P < 0.001). Interreader agreement is significantly better for ultrafast breast MRI (κ = 0.730; 95% CI, 0.699-0.761) than for the FDP (κ = 0.665; 95% CI, 0.633-0.696). Conclusions Breast MRI screening using only an ultrafast breast MRI protocol is noninferior to screening with an FDP and may result in significantly higher screening specificity and shorter reading time

One-day core needle biopsy in a breast clinic: 4 years experience

Contains fulltext : 118897pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access) Contains fulltext : 118897pos.pdf (postprint version ) (Open Access)Many attempts have been made to combine the high diagnostic accuracy and conclusive rate of core needle biopsy (CNB) with the speed of fine needle aspiration cytology in evaluation of solid breast lesions. Multiple hybrid techniques have been developed to achieve this. We describe a cohort of patients for whom we used a relatively new, accelerated method of CNB processing, allowing for a definitive diagnosis the same day. All patients visiting the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre breast clinic during a 4-year period were reviewed to identify all CNBs in this period performed in a same-day diagnosis track. CNB result was compared to post-operative pathology reports when available, and to follow-up when patients were not surgically treated. 1,060 patients underwent CNB of 1,383 lesions, 898 of which in a same-day diagnosis track with a sensitivity of 96.9 % and a specificity of 99.4 %. The inconclusive rate was 9.2 %. For a same-day diagnosis for solid breast lesions, we could give a conclusive diagnosis with accelerated CNB processing in 65 % of our patients requiring CNB. This technique can be used reliably in a same-day diagnosis breast clinic with a very high sensitivity, specificity, and conclusive rate