Efficacy of digital breast tomosynthesis combined with magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of early breast cancer

Table 1 Pathological results of breast cancer group and benign group

Pathological results	No. of cases	Composition ratio (%)
Breast cancer patient	110	100.00
Invasive ductal carcinoma	66	60.00
Ductal carcinoma in situ	22	20.00
Lobular carcinoma in situ	13	11.82
Other types	9	8.18
Patients with benign breast tumors	110	100.00
Breast fibroma	55	50.00
Breast disease	27	24.55
Cystic hyperplasia of breast	14	12.73
Granulomatous lobular mastitis	8	7.27
Other types	6	5.45

Table 2 Matches four tables

DBT		Malignant	Benign	Total
Pathology	Malignant	81	29	110
	Benign	17	93	110
Total		98	122	220
MRI
Pathology	Malignant	93	17	110
		16	94	110
	Benign
Total		109	111	220
MRI + DBT
Pathology	Malignant	107	3	110
	Benign	7	103	110
Total		114	106	220

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; DBT: Digital breast tomosynthesis.

Table 3 The value of magnetic resonance imaging and digital breast tomosynthesis in differential diagnosis of breast benign and malignant diseases

Inspection method	Sensitivity	Specificity	Missed diagnosis rate	Misdiagnosis rate	AUC
DBT	73.64%	84.55%	26.36%	15.45%	0.791
MRI	84.55%	85.45%	15.45%	14.55%	0.850
DBT + MRI	97.27%	93.64%	2.73%	6.36%	0.955

MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; DBT: Digital breast tomosynthesis; AUC: Area under the curve.

Table 4 Comparison of general data between the breast-conserving group and the modified radical treatment group

Group		Breast-conserving group	Modified radical cure group	t/χ2	P value
n		69	41
Age (yr)		37.1 ± 7.1	39.2 ± 6.8	-1.523	0.131
BMI (kg/m2)		23.9 ± 1.9	23.2 ± 1.7	1.941	0.055
Affected side distribution, n (%)	Left side	34 (49.28)	25 (60.98)	1.416	0.243
	Right side	35 (50.72)	16 (39.02)
Lesion diameter (cm)		2.18 ± 0.68	2.34 ± 0.70	-1.18	0.24
Pathology type	Invasive ductal carcinoma	43 (62.32)	23 (56.1)	2.171	0.538
	Ductal carcinoma in situ	15 (21.74)	7 (17.07)
	Lobular carcinoma in situ	6 (8.70)	7 (17.07)
	Other types	5 (7.25)	4 (9.76)

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 5 Comparison of perioperative indexes between the breast-conserving group and the modified radical treatment group (mean ± SD)

Group	n	Surgical bleeding (mL)	Operation time (min)	Hospital stay (d)
Breast-conserving group	69	66.2 ± 15.8	143.8 ± 24.1	9.5 ± 2.2
Modified radical cure group	41	106.7 ± 19.6	185.5 ± 28.0	13.7 ± 2.8
t		-11.869	-8.256	-8.731
P value		0.000	0.000	0.000

Table 6 Comparison of postoperative cosmetic effects between breast-conserving group and modified radical treatment group, n (%)

Group	n	Excellent	Good	Error
Breast-conserving group	69	58 (84.06)	11 (15.94)	0 (0.00)
Modified radical cure group	41	8 (19.51)	22 (53.66)	11 (26.83)
Z		-6.921
P value		0.000

Table 7 Comparison of quality of life between breast-conserving group and modified radical treatment group (mean ± SD)

Group	n	Preoperative	3 mo after surgery	t	P value
Breast-conserving group	69	81.03 ± 6.82	75.46 ± 8.14	3.850	0.000
Modified radical cure group	41	83.26 ± 7.24	70.04 ± 8.65	8.604	0.000
t		-1.621	3.299
P value		0.108	0.001