Mark C Murphy1, Louise Coffey2, Ailbhe C O'Neill2, Cecily Quinn2, Ruth Prichard2, Sorcha McNally2. 1. National Breast Screening Programme, Merrion Unit, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland. mark.murphy@ucdconnect.ie. 2. National Breast Screening Programme, Merrion Unit, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if the synthetic C view acquired at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would give adequate information to confirm a malignancy and could obviate the need to review all the tomosynthesis image data set. METHODS: All patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer recalled from screening mammograms between May and September 2016 were included for review. For each patient, the screening 2D mammogram, the synthetic C view, and the DBT images were reviewed by three breast radiologists and each assigned a BIRADS code. Any discrepancies were reviewed and resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in this time period. Fourteen were excluded because they did not have DBT performed. Five women were recalled for evaluation of two lesions. In total, 83 lesions were assessed. In 27 cases, the BIRADS code remained unchanged in the three modalities. In 16 cases, the lesions appeared more concerning on C view and DBT that on the original mammogram but were not definitive for malignancy (BIRADS 4). In 29 cases, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned on C view and tomosynthesis but not on 2D. For 11 lesions, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned only on DBT. Four women had BIRADS 5 lesions seen on both the C view and DBT that were not seen on the screening 2D mammogram. One was multifocal. CONCLUSION: While the synthetic C view gives additional information when compared to a screening 2D mammogram, the full DBT tomosynthesis data set needs to be reviewed to diagnose a breast malignancy.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if the synthetic C view acquired at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) would give adequate information to confirm a malignancy and could obviate the need to review all the tomosynthesis image data set. METHODS: All patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer recalled from screening mammograms between May and September 2016 were included for review. For each patient, the screening 2D mammogram, the synthetic C view, and the DBT images were reviewed by three breast radiologists and each assigned a BIRADS code. Any discrepancies were reviewed and resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer in this time period. Fourteen were excluded because they did not have DBT performed. Five women were recalled for evaluation of two lesions. In total, 83 lesions were assessed. In 27 cases, the BIRADS code remained unchanged in the three modalities. In 16 cases, the lesions appeared more concerning on C view and DBT that on the original mammogram but were not definitive for malignancy (BIRADS 4). In 29 cases, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned on C view and tomosynthesis but not on 2D. For 11 lesions, a BIRADS 5 code was assigned only on DBT. Four women had BIRADS 5 lesions seen on both the C view and DBT that were not seen on the screening 2D mammogram. One was multifocal. CONCLUSION: While the synthetic C view gives additional information when compared to a screening 2D mammogram, the full DBT tomosynthesis data set needs to be reviewed to diagnose a breast malignancy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Mammography; Synthetic view; Tomosynthesis
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: László Tabár; Bedrich Vitak; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Anders Cohen; Tibor Tot; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; Johan Rosell; Helena Fohlin; Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105