Literature DB >> 25575115

Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.

Phoebe E Freer1, Bethany Niell, Elizabeth A Rafferty.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided needle localization for DBT-detected suspicious abnormalities not visualized with other modalities and to analyze the imaging and pathologic characteristics of abnormalities detected only with DBT to determine the positive predictive value for malignancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. A retrospective query of the imaging database identified 34 consecutive women (average age, 55 years; age range, 28-84 years) with 36 lesions who underwent DBT-guided needle localization between April 2011 and January 2013 with use of commercially available equipment. Imaging findings and medical records were reviewed. Findings that were attributable to previous surgical changes were classified as benign or probably benign and excluded from analysis because the lesions did not proceed to localization.
RESULTS: Architectural distortion was the imaging finding identified in all 36 abnormalities (100%). Findings from pathologic examination after the first attempt at localization were concordant with those from imaging in 35 of the 36 lesions (97%), which is suggestive of appropriate sampling. Histologic findings were malignant in 17 of the 36 lesions (47%; 95% confidence interval: 30.4%, 64.5%). Thirteen of the 17 lesions (76%; 95% confidence interval: 50.1%, 93.1%) were invasive malignancies. Twenty-two of the 36 abnormalities (61%) were either malignant or high-risk lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ, atypical lobular hyperplasia).
CONCLUSION: DBT-guided needle localization is an accurate and feasible method with which to biopsy DBT-detected suspicious architectural distortions not visualized at mammography or sonography. The high risk of malignancy in abnormalities detected only with DBT (47%) confirms that routine biopsy is required for histologic analysis. (©) RSNA,

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25575115     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140515

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana P Lourenco; Grayson L Baird; Robert C Ward; A Stanley Maynard; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Anne Marie McCarthy; Susan P Weinstein; Mitchell D Schnall; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Effects on short-term quality of life of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Licia Gristina; Bianca Bignotti; Francesca Valdora; Simona Tosto; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Malignancy Upgrade Rates of Radial Sclerosing Lesions at Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Pamela Yan; Linda DeMello; Grayson L Baird; Ana P Lourenco
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-11

6.  Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Christian Waldherr; Gilles Berclaz; Hans Jörg Altermatt; Peter Cerny; Patrik Keller; Uwe Dietz; Katharina Buser; Michele Ciriolo; Martin Josef Sonnenschein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Positive Predictive Value of Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsies of Architectural Distortions Seen on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and without an Ultrasound Correlate.

Authors:  Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Adrienne Newburg; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2019-11-18

9.  Male Breast Cancer Review. A Rare Case of Pure DCIS: Imaging Protocol, Radiomics and Management.

Authors:  Daniele Ugo Tari; Luigi Morelli; Antonella Guida; Fabio Pinto
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-25
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.