Literature DB >> 24596363

Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

Giovanna Mariscotti1, Nehmat Houssami, Manuela Durando, Laura Bergamasco, Pier Paolo Campanino, Chiara Ruggieri, Elisa Regini, Andrea Luparia, Riccardo Bussone, Anna Sapino, Paolo Fonio, Giovanni Gandini.   

Abstract

AIM: To define the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US) in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 200 consecutive women with histologically-proven breast cancer using the above imaging techniques. Accuracy measurements were estimated using a lesion-by-lesion analysis for unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, bilateral and all carcinomas. We also calculated sensitivity according to breast density.
RESULTS: DBT had higher sensitivity than DM (90.7% vs. 85.2%). Combined DM and DBT with US yielded a 97.7% sensitivity; despite high sensitivity of MRI (98.8%), the addition of MRI to combined DM with DBT and US did not significantly improve sensitivity. Overall accuracy did not significantly differ between MRI and DM with DBT and US (92.3% vs. 93.7%). Breast density affected sensitivity of DM and DBT (statistically significant difference for DM), not MRI.
CONCLUSION: There is little gain in sensitivity and no gain in overall accuracy, by performing MRI for patients who have been evaluated with DM with DBT and US.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; digital breast tomosynthesis; magnetic resonance imaging; mammography

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24596363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anticancer Res        ISSN: 0250-7005            Impact factor:   2.480


  26 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Preliminary results of computer-aided diagnosis for magnetic resonance imaging of solid breast lesions.

Authors:  Qiujie Yu; Kuan Huang; Ye Zhu; Xiaodan Chen; Wei Meng
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  Follow-up of surgical and minimally invasive treatment of Achilles tendon pathology: a brief diagnostic imaging review.

Authors:  A Barile; F Bruno; S Mariani; F Arrigoni; L Brunese; M Zappia; A Splendiani; E Di Cesare; C Masciocchi
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-02-14

Review 4.  Imaging of postoperative shoulder instability.

Authors:  M De Filippo; A Pesce; A Barile; D Borgia; M Zappia; A Romano; F Pogliacomi; M Verdano; A Pellegrini; K Johnson
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-02-06

5.  Assessment of disease extent on contrast-enhanced MRI in breast cancer detected at digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone.

Authors:  A V Chudgar; E F Conant; S P Weinstein; B M Keller; M Synnestvedt; P Yamartino; E S McDonald
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Characterize MRI-Detected Additional Lesions Unidentified at Targeted Ultrasound in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Giovanna Mariscotti; Nehmat Houssami; Manuela Durando; Pier Paolo Campanino; Elisa Regini; Alberto Fornari; Riccardo Bussone; Isabella Castellano; Anna Sapino; Paolo Fonio; Giovanni Gandini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Longitudinal Study of Mammographic Density Measures That Predict Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Kavitha Krishnan; Laura Baglietto; Jennifer Stone; Julie A Simpson; Gianluca Severi; Christopher F Evans; Robert J MacInnis; Graham G Giles; Carmel Apicella; John L Hopper
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?

Authors:  Diomidis Botsikas; Ilias Bagetakos; Marlise Picarra; Ana Carolina Da Cunha Afonso Barisits; Sana Boudabbous; Xavier Montet; Giang Thanh Lam; Ismini Mainta; Anastasia Kalovidouri; Minerva Becker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging added to digital mammography in women with known breast cancers.

Authors:  Won Hwa Kim; Jung Min Chang; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Ann Yi; Hye Ryoung Koo; Hye Mi Gweon; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Automated Breast Ultrasound: Dual-Sided Compared with Single-Sided Imaging.

Authors:  Eric D Larson; Won-Mean Lee; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Mitchel M Goodsitt; Chris Lashbrook; Fouzaan Zafar; Oliver D Kripfgans; Kai Thomenius; Paul L Carson
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.