R Schulz-Wendtland1, G Dilbat2, M R Bani3, M P Lux3, M Meier-Meitinger1, E Wenkel1, S Schwab4, M W Beckmann3, M Uder4, B Adamietz1. 1. Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (University Hospital in Erlangen), Department of Radiology, Gynaecological Radiology, Erlangen. 2. Radiological Practice Roth and Weissenburg, Roth. 3. Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (University Hospital in Erlangen), Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen. 4. Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (University Hospital in Erlangen), Department of Radiology, Erlangen.
Abstract
Aim: A prospective clinical study was done to see whether it is possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared commercial FFDM. Material and Method: Between 1/2011 and 5/2011 we diagnosed an invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) in 100 patients. After histological verification we performed breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using one of 2 different systems: 1. Tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, Tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm, pixel pitch, 8 l/mm, range: 50°, 25 projections, time for scanning > 20 s, geometry: same scanning scope, reconstruction: filtered back projection; or 2. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm, pixel pitch, 8 l/mm as the standard. The 100 radiograms obtained with both systems were prospectively shown on a monitor to 3 radiologists. Results: Out of a total of 100 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) no re-excision was necessary in 78 patients. A retrospective analysis (n = 22) demonstrated an increase in sensitivity of tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 1.0 of 8 % (p < 0.05), i.e., in 8 patients re-excision would not have been necessary with tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Tomosynthesis has a significant higher sensitivity (p < 0.05) compared with a commercial FFDM system. Studies with higher numbers of patients will be necessary to evaluate this method.
Aim: A prospective clinical study was done to see whether it is possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared commercial FFDM. Material and Method: Between 1/2011 and 5/2011 we diagnosed an invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) in 100 patients. After histological verification we performed breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using one of 2 different systems: 1. Tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, Tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm, pixel pitch, 8 l/mm, range: 50°, 25 projections, time for scanning > 20 s, geometry: same scanning scope, reconstruction: filtered back projection; or 2. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm, pixel pitch, 8 l/mm as the standard. The 100 radiograms obtained with both systems were prospectively shown on a monitor to 3 radiologists. Results: Out of a total of 100 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) no re-excision was necessary in 78 patients. A retrospective analysis (n = 22) demonstrated an increase in sensitivity of tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 1.0 of 8 % (p < 0.05), i.e., in 8 patients re-excision would not have been necessary with tomosynthesis. Conclusion: Tomosynthesis has a significant higher sensitivity (p < 0.05) compared with a commercial FFDM system. Studies with higher numbers of patients will be necessary to evaluate this method.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast; mammary gland tumor; mammographic density
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
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
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
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
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
Authors: R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; M P Lux; E Wenkel; S Schwab; C R Loehberg; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: R Schulz-Wendtland; G Dilbat; M Bani; P A Fasching; K Heusinger; M P Lux; C R Loehberg; B Brehm; M Hammon; M Saake; P Dankerl; S M Jud; C Rauh; C M Bayer; M W Beckmann; M Uder; M Meier-Meitinger Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.915
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