Literature DB >> 24771921

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology, Specimen Radiography System (SRS) and Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Can Optimise Surgical Therapy?

R Schulz-Wendtland1, G Dilbat2, M Bani3, P A Fasching3, K Heusinger3, M P Lux3, C R Loehberg3, B Brehm1, M Hammon1, M Saake1, P Dankerl1, S M Jud3, C Rauh3, C M Bayer3, M W Beckmann3, M Uder4, M Meier-Meitinger1.   

Abstract

Aim: This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using CMOS technology, a specimen radiography system (SRS) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional full field digital mammography (FFDM) system. Material and Method: Between 12/2012 and 2/2013 50 patients were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 5). After histological verification, all patients underwent breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using 4 different systems and differing magnifications: 1. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm; 2. BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, AZ, USA), CMOS technology, photodiode array, flat panel, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50 µm pixel pitch, 12 lp/mm; 3. the Trident™ specimen radiography system (SRS) (Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 70 µm pixel pitch, 7.1 lp/mm; 4. tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm, angular range 50 degrees, 25 projections, scan time > 20 s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiographs were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists.
Results: Of the 50 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 6), 39 patients required no further surgical therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving surgery. A retrospective analysis (n = 11) showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase of sensitivity with the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 2.0 or 1.0 : 1.0 (tomosynthesis) (2.6, 3.3 or 3.6 %), i.e. re-excision would not have been necessary in 2, 3 or 4 patients, respectively, compared to findings obtained with a standard magnification of 1.0 : 1.0.
Conclusion: The sensitivity of the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis was significantly (p < 0.05) higher and the rate of re-excisions was reduced compared to FFDM using a conventional detector at a magnification of 2.0 but without zooming.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; breast cancer; breast malignancy; mammography

Year:  2013        PMID: 24771921      PMCID: PMC3864442          DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1328600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd        ISSN: 0016-5751            Impact factor:   2.915


  28 in total

1.  Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease. EUSOMA Working Party.

Authors:  N M Perry
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  [Compression-free biplanar radiography of the breast specimen with a specimen device].

Authors:  J-H Grunert; U Wiechmann; E Gmelin
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2003-03

3.  Experimental phantom lesion detectability study using a digital breast tomosynthesis prototype system.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; E Wenkel; M Lell; C Böhner; W A Bautz; T Mertelmeier
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2006-12

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study.

Authors:  Walter F Good; Gordon S Abrams; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; David Gur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Zurich Consensus: German Expert Opinion on the St. Gallen Votes on 15 March 2009 (11th International Conference at St. Gallen: Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer).

Authors:  Matthias W Beckmann; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Serban-Dan Costa; Klaus Diedrich; Ingo Diel; Wolfgang Eiermann; Klaus Friese; Bernd Gerber; Nadia Harbeck; Joern Hilfrich; Wolfgang Janni; Fritz Jaenicke; Walter Jonat; Manfred Kaufmann; Marion Kiechle; Uwe Koehler; Rolf Kreienberg; Gunter von Minckwitz; Volker Moebus; Ulrike Nitz; Andreas Schneeweiss; Christoph Thomssen; Diethelm Wallwiener
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Gordon S Abrams; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Ronald L Perrin; Grace Y Rathfon; Jules H Sumkin; Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Management of the breast specimen.

Authors:  C J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Factors correlating with reexcision after breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  M R Bani; M P Lux; K Heusinger; E Wenkel; A Magener; R Schulz-Wendtland; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-06-09       Impact factor: 4.424

9.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer risk estimation: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Despina Kontos; Predrag R Bakic; Ann-Katherine Carton; Andrea B Troxel; Emily F Conant; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 10.  Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures.

Authors:  Matthew Wallis; Anne Tardivon; Anne Tarvidon; Thomas Helbich; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.034

View more
  4 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy of resection margin in specimen radiography: digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Giovanna Romanucci; Sara Mercogliano; Elisabetta Carucci; Alessandro Cina; Elisa Zantedeschi; Andrea Caneva; Chiara Benassuti; Francesca Fornasa
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Comparison of Sonography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Locate Intramammary Marker Clips.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; P Dankerl; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; D L Wachter; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger; B Brehm
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Mammographic Density and Prediction of Nodal Status in Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  C C Hack; L Häberle; K Geisler; R Schulz-Wendtland; A Hartmann; P A Fasching; M Uder; D L Wachter; S M Jud; C R Loehberg; M P Lux; C Rauh; M W Beckmann; K Heusinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 2.915

4.  Evaluation of Newly Adapted Clip Marker System in Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy for Suspicion of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; P Dankerl; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger; B Brehm
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.915

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.