Literature DB >> 28834441

Pathologic Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Digital 2D Versus Tomosynthesis Mammography.

Manisha Bahl1, Leslie R Lamb1, Constance D Lehman1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the risk of malignancy associated with architectural distortion detected on 2D digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of architectural distortion cases recommended for biopsy from September 2007 to February 2011, the period before DBT integration (hereafter known as the DM group), and from January 2013 to June 2016, the period after DBT integration (hereafter known as the DBT group). Medical records were reviewed for imaging findings and pathology results.
RESULTS: Architectural distortion was more commonly detected in the DBT group than the DM group (0.14% [274/202,438 examinations] vs 0.07% [121/166,661 examinations]; p < 0.001). The positive predictive value of architectural distortion for malignancy was significantly lower in the DBT group than the DM group (50.7% [139/274 cases] vs 73.6% [89/121 cases]; p < 0.001). Radial scar was the most common nonmalignant finding in both groups, but it was more common in the DBT group (33.2% [91/274] vs 11.6% [14/121]; p < 0.001). In the DBT group, architectural distortion without correlative findings on ultrasound was less likely to represent malignancy than was architectural distortion with correlative findings on ultrasound (29.2% [31/106] vs 66.5% [105/158]; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Architectural distortion is more commonly detected on DBT than DM and is less likely to represent malignancy on DBT. Architectural distortion on DBT is less likely to represent malignancy if there is no sonographic correlate; however, biopsy is warranted even in the absence of a sonographic correlate, given the nearly 30% risk of malignancy in this setting.

Entities:  

Keywords:  architectural distortion; breast cancer; digital breast tomosynthesis; digital mammography; radial scar

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28834441     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.17979

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  6 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Calcifications at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Imaging Features and Biopsy Techniques.

Authors:  Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 5.333

3.  Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl; Sarah Mercaldo; Charmi A Vijapura; Anne Marie McCarthy; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  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

5.  Evaluation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as Replacement of Full-Field Digital Mammography Using an In Silico Imaging Trial.

Authors:  Aldo Badano; Christian G Graff; Andreu Badal; Diksha Sharma; Rongping Zeng; Frank W Samuelson; Stephen J Glick; Kyle J Myers
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2018-11-02

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis in combination with 2D mammography for the characterisation of mammographic abnormalities.

Authors:  Vithya Visalatchi Sanmugasiva; Marlina Tanty Ramli Hamid; Farhana Fadzli; Faizatul Izza Rozalli; Chai Hong Yeong; Nazimah Ab Mumin; Kartini Rahmat
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.