Literature DB >> 26640287

Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology versus Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Increases the Quality of Intraoperative Imaging?

R Schulz-Wendtland1, G Dilbat2, M Bani3, P A Fasching3, M P Lux3, E Wenkel1, S Schwab4, C R Loehberg3, S M Jud3, C Rauh3, C M Bayer3, M W Beckmann5, M Uder6, M Meier-Meitinger1.   

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to assess whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions and improve the quality using CMOS technology or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional FFDM system. Material and
Methods: An invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS 5) was diagnosed in 200 patients in the period from 5/2011 to 1/2012. After histological verification, a breast-conserving therapy was performed with intraoperative imaging. Three different imaging systems were used: 1) Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 l/mm as the standard; 2) BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, USA), flat panel photodiode array, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50 µm pixel pitch, 12 l/mm; 3) Tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 µm pixel pitch, 8 l/mm, range: 50°, 25 projections, scan time > 20 s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiograms were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists.
Results: Out of a total of 200 patients with histologically confirmed breast cancer (BI-RADS 6) 156 patients required no further operative therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving therapy. A retrospective analysis (n = 44) showed an increase in sensitivity with tomosynthesis compared to the BioVision™ (CMOS technology) and the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0 : 1.0 of 8 % (p < 0.05), i.e. re-excision would not have been necessary in 16 patients with tomosynthesis. Conclusions: The sensitivity of tomosynthesis for intraoperative radiography is significantly (p < 0.05) higher compared to both CMOS technology and an FFDM system with a conventional detector. Additional studies using higher magnification, e.g. 2.0 : 1.0, but no zooming will be necessary to evaluate the method further.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast; breast cancer; mammographic density; mammography

Year:  2012        PMID: 26640287      PMCID: PMC4651156          DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1314942

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
  3 in total

1.  Percent Mammographic Density and Dense Area as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  C Rauh; C C Hack; L Häberle; A Hein; A Engel; M G Schrauder; P A Fasching; S M Jud; A B Ekici; C R Loehberg; M Meier-Meitinger; S Ozan; R Schulz-Wendtland; M Uder; A Hartmann; D L Wachter; M W Beckmann; K Heusinger
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  Second Opinion Assessment in Diagnostic Mammography at a Breast Cancer Centre.

Authors:  J Lorenzen; A K Finck-Wedel; B Lisboa; G Adam
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  [Future of mammography-based imaging].

Authors:  R Schulz-Wendtland; T Wittenberg; T Michel; A Hartmann; M W Beckmann; C Rauh; S M Jud; B Brehm; M Meier-Meitinger; G Anton; M Uder; P A Fasching
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.635

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.