Literature DB >> 27870337

Breast Cancers Found with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Comparison of Pathology and Histologic Grade.

Wei-Shin Wang1, Lara Hardesty1, James Borgstede1, Jayme Takahashi2, Sharon Sams1.   

Abstract

To compare the pathology and histologic grading of breast cancers detected with digital breast tomosynthesis to those found with conventional digital mammography. The institutional review board approved this study. A database search for all breast cancers diagnosed from June 2012 through December 2013 was performed. Imaging records for these cancers were reviewed and patients who had screening mammography with tomosynthesis as their initial examination were selected. Five dedicated breast imaging radiologists reviewed each of these screening mammograms to determine whether the cancer was visible on conventional digital mammography or whether tomosynthesis was needed to identify the cancer. A cancer was considered mammographically occult if all five radiologists agreed that the cancer could not be seen on conventional digital mammography. The size, pathology and histologic grading for all diagnosed breast cancers were then reviewed. The Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests were utilized to determine any association between imaging findings and cancer size, pathologic type and histologic grade. Sixty-five cancers in 63 patients were identified. Ten of these cancers were considered occult on conventional digital mammography and detected with the addition of tomosynthesis. These mammographically occult cancers were significantly associated with Nottingham grade 1 histologic pathology (p = 0.02), were smaller (median size: 6 mm versus 10 mm, p = 0.07) and none demonstrated axillary nodal metastases. Breast cancers identified through the addition of tomosynthesis are associated with Nottingham grade 1 histologic pathology and prognostically more favorable than cancers identified with conventional digital mammography alone.
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; screening; tomosynthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27870337     DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12649

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  5 in total

1.  Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; Samantha P Zuckerman; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Katrina E Korhonen; Julia A Birnbaum; Jennifer D Tobey; Mitchell D Schnall; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Association of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Cancer Detection and Recall Rates by Age and Breast Density.

Authors:  Emily F Conant; William E Barlow; Sally D Herschorn; Donald L Weaver; Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Kathryn P Lowry; Natasha K Stout; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander; Christopher I Li; Mitchell D Schnall; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 31.777

Review 3.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Correlation between histopathological grading and shear-wave elastography in evaluating invasive carcinoma of no special type.

Authors:  Yi-Cheng Zhu; Yuan Zhang; Shu-Hao Deng; Quan Jiang; Deng-Shan Wang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.447

5.  Factors Affecting Breast Cancer Detectability on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Two-Dimensional Digital Mammography in Patients with Dense Breasts.

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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.