Table 3 Characterizations of lesions in tomosynthesis
From: Do automated breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis have an effective role in dense breast evaluation?
Count | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
ACR (TOMO) | ACR A | 0 | 0.0 |
ACR B | 0 | 0.0 | |
ACR C | 32 | 84.2 | |
ACR D | 6 | 15.8 | |
Shape (TOMO) | Oval | 10 | 26.3 |
Round | 6 | 15.8 | |
Irregular | 19 | 50.0 | |
No mass | 3 | 7.9 | |
Margin (TOMO) | Circumscribed | 14 | 36.8 |
Obscured | 1 | 2.6 | |
Microlobulated | 1 | 2.6 | |
Indistinct | 2 | 5.3 | |
Speculated | 17 | 44.7 | |
No mass | 3 | 7.9 | |
Density (TOMO) | Fat | 0 | 0.0 |
Low | 6 | 15.8 | |
Equal | 5 | 13.2 | |
High | 27 | 71.1 | |
Asymmetry (TOMO) | No asymmetry | 30 | 81.1 |
Global | 6 | 16.2 | |
Focal | 1 | 2.7 | |
Developing | 0 | 0.0 | |
Calcification (TOMO) | No calcification | 23 | 60.5 |
Bengin | 3 | 7.9 | |
Suspicious | 12 | 31.6 | |
Distribution of calcification (TOMO) | No calcification | 24 | 64.9 |
Diffuse | 4 | 10.8 | |
Regional | 1 | 2.7 | |
Grouped | 8 | 21.6 | |
Linear | 0 | 0.0 | |
Segmental | 0 | 0.0 | |
Nipple retraction (TOMO) | Yes | 6 | 16.2 |
No | 31 | 83.8 |