Three-dimensional tomosynthesis versus two-dimensional mammography in detection and characterization of different breast lesions

Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine

Table 4 Diagnostic performance of DM in characterization of breast masses according to shape, margins and density

Mass on DM	Pathology		Total	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy	AUC
Shape	benign	malignant	Total	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy	AUC
Irregular	3 (FP)	5 (TP)	8 (47.1%)	62.5%	66.7%	62.5%	66.7%	64.7%	0.646
Regular	6 (TN)	3(FN)	9 (52.9%)	62.5%	66.7%	62.5%	66.7%	64.7%	0.646
Margins
Ill defined	1 (FP)	2 (TP)	3 (17.6%)
Speculated	1 (FP)	4 (TP)	5 (29.4%)	75%	77.8%	75%	77.8%	76.5%	0.764
Well defined	7 (TN)	2 (FN)	9 (52.9%)	75%	77.8%	75%	77.8%	76.5%	0.764
Density
Isodense	4 (TN)	0 (FN)	4 (23.5%)	100%	44.4%	61.5%	100%	70.6%	0.722
Hyper-dense	5 (FP)	8 (TP)	13 (76.5%)	100%	44.4%	61.5%	100%	70.6%	0.722
Total	9 (52.9%)	8 (47.1%)	17