CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较锥光束乳腺CT（CBBCT）和乳腺X线摄影对乳腺组织覆盖范围的差异。方法前瞻性收集96例（141侧乳腺）接受过乳腺X线摄影的35岁以上女性纳入研究。在乳腺X线摄影检查1周内行CBBCT检查。评价乳腺X线摄影和CCBCT对乳腺头侧、足侧、内侧、外侧、后侧的覆盖范围（覆盖判定为阳性），并采用McNemar检验进行比较。结果乳腺X线摄影对头侧、足侧、内侧、外侧和后侧的覆盖范围为阳性者分别为141（100.0%）、88（62.4%）、52（36.9%）、60（42.6%）和17（12.0%）侧，锥光束乳腺CT对上述位置的覆盖范围为阳性者分别为136（96.4%）、136（96.4%）、129（91.5%）、129（91.5%）和129（91.5%）侧，CBBCT对乳腺足侧、内侧、外侧、后侧的覆盖范围优于乳腺X线摄影，差异有统计学意义（χ2值分别为42.48、67.95、60.05、108.08，P均<0.01）；CBBCT和乳腺X线摄影对乳腺组织头侧的覆盖范围差异无统计学意义（χ2=3.20，P=0.074）。结论 CBBCT检查对乳腺组织的覆盖范围明显优于乳腺X线摄影，尤其对乳腺后侧的显示具有优势。
목적：비교추광속유선CT（CBBCT）화유선X선섭영대유선조직복개범위적차이。방법전첨성수집96례（141측유선）접수과유선X선섭영적35세이상녀성납입연구。재유선X선섭영검사1주내행CBBCT검사。평개유선X선섭영화CCBCT대유선두측、족측、내측、외측、후측적복개범위（복개판정위양성），병채용McNemar검험진행비교。결과유선X선섭영대두측、족측、내측、외측화후측적복개범위위양성자분별위141（100.0%）、88（62.4%）、52（36.9%）、60（42.6%）화17（12.0%）측，추광속유선CT대상술위치적복개범위위양성자분별위136（96.4%）、136（96.4%）、129（91.5%）、129（91.5%）화129（91.5%）측，CBBCT대유선족측、내측、외측、후측적복개범위우우유선X선섭영，차이유통계학의의（χ2치분별위42.48、67.95、60.05、108.08，P균<0.01）；CBBCT화유선X선섭영대유선조직두측적복개범위차이무통계학의의（χ2=3.20，P=0.074）。결론 CBBCT검사대유선조직적복개범위명현우우유선X선섭영，우기대유선후측적현시구유우세。
Objective To evaluate the d breast tissue coverage of cone?beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) compared with conventional digital mammography. Methods CBBCT scans and digital mammography in 96 patients (141 breasts) over the age of 35 were prospectively assessed in the study. CBBCT scans were performed within 1 week after digital mammography. Superior, inferior, medial, lateral, posterior coverage of breast tissue in CBBCT and digital mammography were evaluated, respectively. It wasconsidered as positive if there was a breast coverage. McNemar test was used to assess differences in breast coverage between CBBCT and digital mammography. Results Within all the 141 cases, digital mammography covers the superior aspects in 141 cases (100.0%), inferior aspects in 88 cases (62.4%), medial aspects in 52 cases (36.9%), lateral aspects in 60 cases (42.6%), and posterior aspects in 17 cases (12.0%). CBBCT covers the superior aspects in 136 cases (96.4%), the inferior aspects in 136 cases (96.4%), the medial aspects in 129 cases (91.5%), the lateral aspects in 129 cases (91.5%), and the posterior aspects in 129 cases (91.5%). CBBCT had statistically significant better coverage than digital mammography in the inferior, medial, lateral, and posterior aspects (χ2 values were 42.48, 67.95, 60.05 and 108.08, respectively;all P values<0.01) regions. No statistically significant difference (χ2 value=3.20,P=0.074 ) was found in the superior aspects. Conclusion CBBCT has better breast tissue coverage than conventional digital mammography, especially in posterior aspects of breast tissues.