Kazuaki Nakashima1, Takayoshi Uematsu2, Takahiro Itoh3, Kaoru Takahashi4, Seiichirou Nishimura4, Tomomi Hayashi4, Takashi Sugino5. 1. Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention Section, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. kaz.nakashima@scchr.jp. 2. Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention Section, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 4. Department of Breast Surgery, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan. 5. Department of Pathology, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Nagaizumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the visibility of circumscribed masses on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images and 2D mammograms and determine the usefulness of DBT for differentiation between benign and malignant circumscribed masses. METHODS: Seventy-one (19 malignant and 52 benign) mammographic well-circumscribed masses were included. Visibility of the masses and halo signs on DBT images were retrospectively compared with 2D mammograms. The effects of mammographic breast density on mass visibility were also evaluated. RESULTS: For DBT, 83% were superior and 17% were equivalent in visibility of the masses to that of 2D, and superiority of DBT was significantly enhanced in the high breast density group compared with the low breast density group (91% vs 68%, respectively, p = 0.016). Three lesions were only detected on DBT. There was no significant difference in the superiority of DBT for lesion visibility between malignant and benign masses. The halo sign was detected in 58% lesions on DBT and in 4% on 2D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Circumscribed masses were better visualized on DBT than on 2D mammograms, particularly in high-density breasts. The halo sign often appeared on DBT and gave a clearer mass margin. However, circumscribed masses on DBT are not assured of being benign. KEY POINTS: • Circumscribed masses were better visualized on breast tomosynthesis than on 2D mammography. • Tomosynthesis visualized circumscribed masses better than 2D for all breast density categories. • Halo signs often appeared on tomosynthesis and contributed to detect circumscribed margins. • Circumscribed masses on tomosynthesis images are not assured of being benign lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the visibility of circumscribed masses on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images and 2D mammograms and determine the usefulness of DBT for differentiation between benign and malignant circumscribed masses. METHODS: Seventy-one (19 malignant and 52 benign) mammographic well-circumscribed masses were included. Visibility of the masses and halo signs on DBT images were retrospectively compared with 2D mammograms. The effects of mammographic breast density on mass visibility were also evaluated. RESULTS: For DBT, 83% were superior and 17% were equivalent in visibility of the masses to that of 2D, and superiority of DBT was significantly enhanced in the high breast density group compared with the low breast density group (91% vs 68%, respectively, p = 0.016). Three lesions were only detected on DBT. There was no significant difference in the superiority of DBT for lesion visibility between malignant and benign masses. The halo sign was detected in 58% lesions on DBT and in 4% on 2D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Circumscribed masses were better visualized on DBT than on 2D mammograms, particularly in high-density breasts. The halo sign often appeared on DBT and gave a clearer mass margin. However, circumscribed masses on DBT are not assured of being benign. KEY POINTS: • Circumscribed masses were better visualized on breast tomosynthesis than on 2D mammography. • Tomosynthesis visualized circumscribed masses better than 2D for all breast density categories. • Halo signs often appeared on tomosynthesis and contributed to detect circumscribed margins. • Circumscribed masses on tomosynthesis images are not assured of being benign lesions.
Keywords:
Breast tomosynthesis; Circumscribed; Dense breast; Halo; Mammography
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: Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M J Michell; A Iqbal; R K Wasan; D R Evans; C Peacock; C P Lawinski; A Douiri; R Wilson; P Whelehan Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: R Kaas; R Kroger; J H C L Hendriks; A P E Besnard; W Koops; F A Pameijer; W Prevoo; C E Loo; S H Muller Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-04-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Soo Hyun Lee; Mi Jung Jang; Sun Mi Kim; Bo La Yun; Jiwon Rim; Jung Min Chang; Bohyoung Kim; Hye Young Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2018-12-27 Impact factor: 3.500