Literature DB >> 29410346

Pathologic Upgrade Rates of High-Risk Breast Lesions on Digital Two-Dimensional vs Tomosynthesis Mammography.

Leslie R Lamb1, Manisha Bahl2, Kevin S Hughes3, Constance D Lehman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare the pathologic upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions (HRLs) on digital two-dimensional mammography (DM) vs digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). STUDY
DESIGN: The study cohort was composed of patients with HRLs diagnosed by image-guided core needle biopsy from December 2007 to February 2011 (DM group, before DBT integration) and from January 2013 to March 2016 (DBT group, after complete DBT integration). Medical records were reviewed for surgical outcomes and follow-up imaging.
RESULTS: Eight hundred and ninety-three patients with 900 biopsy-proven HRLs underwent surgical excision (97.0% [873 of 900]) or had at least 2 years of imaging follow-up (3.0% [27 of 900]). The most common HRL was atypical ductal hyperplasia in the DM and DBT groups (37.4% [337 of 900]). The overall upgrade rate of HRLs to malignancy was 11.3% (102 of 900). There were no statistically significant differences in overall upgrades rates of HRLs on DM vs DBT (11.4% [54 of 475] vs 11.3% [48 of 425]; p = 0.97) or in upgrade rates of HRL subtypes. However, HRLs that upgraded on DBT were more likely to be invasive rather than in situ carcinoma compared with HRLs that upgraded on DM (39.6% [19 of 48] vs 20.4% [11 of 54]; p = 0.03). Overall, the most common HRL to upgrade was atypical ductal hyperplasia (18.4% [62 of 337]). The least common HRLs to upgrade in the DBT group were biphasic neoplasms (0% [0 of 22]), flat epithelial atypia (1.6% [1 of 62]), and papillomas without atypia (4.5% [2 of 44]).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in the upgrade rates of HRLs on DM vs DBT, but the proportion of HRL upgrades that are invasive rather than in situ carcinoma is higher with DBT.
Copyright © 2018 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29410346     DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2017.12.049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Surg        ISSN: 1072-7515            Impact factor:   6.113


  5 in total

1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade.

Authors:  Geunwon Kim; Peter G Mikhael; Tawakalitu O Oseni; Manisha Bahl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Performance of a clinical and imaging-based multivariate model as decision support tool to help save unnecessary surgeries for high-risk breast lesions.

Authors:  Dogan S Polat; Jennifer G Schopp; Firouzeh Arjmandi; Jessica Porembka; Venetia Sarode; Deborah Farr; Yin Xi; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-03       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  High-risk lesions of the breast: concurrent diagnostic tools and management recommendations.

Authors:  Francesca Catanzariti; Daly Avendano; Giuseppe Cicero; Margarita Garza-Montemayor; Carmelo Sofia; Emmanuele Venanzi Rullo; Giorgio Ascenti; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Maria Adele Marino
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-05-26

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

Review 5.  A system for risk stratification and prioritization of breast cancer surgeries delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic: preparing for re-entry.

Authors:  Barbara L Smith; Anvy Nguyen; Jenna E Korotkin; Bridget N Kelly; Michelle C Specht; Laura M Spring; Beverly Moy; Steven J Isakoff; Michele A Gadd
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 4.872

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.