OBJECTIVE: To review the imaging features of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) seen on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and to evaluate whether DBT could improve conspicuity and tumour size assessment of ILC in comparison with digital mammography (DM). METHODS: Institutional review board with waiver of informed consent was obtained for this retrospective study. Patients with ILC or IDC who underwent DBT and DM at the time of diagnosis were included. DM and DBT images were reviewed in consensus by two breast radiologists in order to assess imaging features, conspicuity and maximum tumour diameter of ILC and IDC. Pathology on the surgical specimen was considered the standard of reference for assessment of tumour size. RESULTS: 43 patients (20 patients with ILC and 23 patients with IDC) were included. On DBT, compared with IDC, ILC presented less frequently as masses (40% vs 78%) (p = 0.01) and more frequently as isolated distortion (20% vs 0%) (p = 0.03). ILC presented more often as asymmetries (60%) than masses (20%) on DM (p = 0.02) but not on DBT (35% vs 40%; p = 1.00). Conspicuity of ILC was significantly higher on DBT than on DM (p = 0.002), while the difference between the two techniques was not significant for IDC (p = 0.2). Regarding ILC, concordance in tumour size measurement between DBT and pathology was fair (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.24). CONCLUSION: ILC rarely presented as dense masses but frequently demonstrated architectural distortion on DBT. DBT increased lesion conspicuity but failed to accurately assess tumour size of ILC. Advances in knowledge: (1) This study describes specific features of ILC on DBT. (2) It shows that DBT can improve conspicuity of ILC.
OBJECTIVE: To review the imaging features of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) seen on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and to evaluate whether DBT could improve conspicuity and tumour size assessment of ILC in comparison with digital mammography (DM). METHODS: Institutional review board with waiver of informed consent was obtained for this retrospective study. Patients with ILC or IDC who underwent DBT and DM at the time of diagnosis were included. DM and DBT images were reviewed in consensus by two breast radiologists in order to assess imaging features, conspicuity and maximum tumour diameter of ILC and IDC. Pathology on the surgical specimen was considered the standard of reference for assessment of tumour size. RESULTS: 43 patients (20 patients with ILC and 23 patients with IDC) were included. On DBT, compared with IDC, ILC presented less frequently as masses (40% vs 78%) (p = 0.01) and more frequently as isolated distortion (20% vs 0%) (p = 0.03). ILC presented more often as asymmetries (60%) than masses (20%) on DM (p = 0.02) but not on DBT (35% vs 40%; p = 1.00). Conspicuity of ILC was significantly higher on DBT than on DM (p = 0.002), while the difference between the two techniques was not significant for IDC (p = 0.2). Regarding ILC, concordance in tumour size measurement between DBT and pathology was fair (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.24). CONCLUSION: ILC rarely presented as dense masses but frequently demonstrated architectural distortion on DBT. DBT increased lesion conspicuity but failed to accurately assess tumour size of ILC. Advances in knowledge: (1) This study describes specific features of ILC on DBT. (2) It shows that DBT can improve conspicuity of ILC.
Authors: Carla Boetes; Jeroen Veltman; Lya van Die; Peter Bult; Theo Wobbes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Gisella Gennaro; R Edward Hendrick; Alicia Toledano; Jean R Paquelet; Elisabetta Bezzon; Roberta Chersevani; Cosimo di Maggio; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Enrica Baldan; Fabio Pomerri; Pier Carlo Muzzio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthew J Burky; Emily M Ray; David W Ollila; Siobhan M O'Connor; Johann D Hertel; Benjamin C Calhoun Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2020-11-24