Literature DB >> 30681901

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

Joao V Horvat1, Delia M Keating1, Halio Rodrigues-Duarte1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Victoria L Mango1.   

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM), the standard of care for breast cancer screening, has some limitations. With the advent of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), improvements including decreased recall rates and increased cancer detection rates have been observed. The quasi-three-dimensional capability of DBT reduces breast tissue overlap, a significant limitation of FFDM. However, early studies demonstrate that a few cancers detected at FFDM may not be diagnosed at DBT-only screening, and lesions with calcifications as the dominant feature may look less suspicious at DBT or not be visible at all. These findings support the use of combined FFDM and DBT protocols to optimize screening performance. However, this combination would approximately double the patient's radiation exposure. The development of computer algorithms that generate two-dimensional synthesized mammography (SM) views from DBT has improved calcification conspicuity and sensitivity. Therefore, SM may substitute for FFDM in screening protocols, reducing radiation exposure. DBT plus SM demonstrates significantly better performance than that of FFDM alone, although there are reports of missed malignant calcifications. Thus, some centers continue to perform FFDM with DBT. Use of DBT in breast imaging has also necessitated the development of DBT-guided biopsy. DBT-guided biopsy may have a higher success rate than that of stereotactic biopsy, with a shorter procedure time. While DBT brings substantial improvements to breast cancer imaging, it is important to be aware of its strengths and limitations regarding detection of calcifications. This article reviews the imaging appearance of breast calcifications at DBT, discusses calcification biopsy techniques, and provides an overview of the current literature. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2019 An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on February 13, 2019.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30681901      PMCID: PMC6438361          DOI: 10.1148/rg.2019180124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  66 in total

Review 1.  Breast tomosynthesis: present considerations and future applications.

Authors:  Jeong Mi Park; Edmund A Franken; Megha Garg; Laurie L Fajardo; Loren T Niklason
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 2.  Digital breast tomosynthesis in one or two views as a replacement or adjunct technique to full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  T M Svahn; N Houssami
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2015-04-05       Impact factor: 0.972

3.  Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Samantha P Zuckerman; Andrew D A Maidment; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 4.  A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II. Image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications.

Authors:  Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Sofie Sebuødegård; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur; Bjørn Helge Østerås; Randi Gullien; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Digital Mammography: Evaluation in a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Tone Hovda; Åsne S Holen; Christoph I Lee; Judy Albertsen; Hilde Bjørndal; Siri H B Brandal; Randi Gullien; Jon Lømo; Daehoon Park; Linda Romundstad; Pål Suhrke; Einar Vigeland; Per Skaane
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy.

Authors:  Simone Schrading; Martina Distelmaier; Timm Dirrichs; Sabine Detering; Liv Brolund; Kevin Strobel; Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.

Authors:  Daniela Bernardi; Petra Macaskill; Marco Pellegrini; Marvi Valentini; Carmine Fantò; Livio Ostillio; Paolina Tuttobene; Andrea Luparia; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study.

Authors:  Alberto Tagliafico; Giovanna Mariscotti; Manuela Durando; Carmen Stevanin; Giulio Tagliafico; Lucia Martino; Bianca Bignotti; Massimo Calabrese; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.

Authors:  Katrina E Korhonen; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 5.333

View more
  9 in total

1.  Quantitative assessment of microcalcification cluster image quality in digital breast tomosynthesis, 2-dimensional and synthetic mammography.

Authors:  Andreas E Petropoulos; Spyros G Skiadopoulos; Anna N Karahaliou; Gerasimos A T Messaris; Nikolaos S Arikidis; Lena I Costaridou
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-12-07       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Visual bias could impede diagnostic accuracy of breast cancer calcifications.

Authors:  Jessica K Witt; Amelia C Warden; Michael D Dodd; Elizabeth E Edney
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-06-09

3.  [Digital breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of dense breast lesions].

Authors:  A'qiao Xu; Hongqin He; Qiujun Shi; Zhiqing Li; Shengjian Zhang
Journal:  Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-04-25

4.  A prototype Multi-X-ray-source array (MXA) for digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Amy E Becker; Andrew M Hernandez; John M Boone; Paul R Schwoebel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Tumor-associated autoantibodies from mouse breast cancer models are found in serum of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Sasha E Stanton; Ekram Gad; Erik Ramos; Lauren Corulli; James Annis; Jennifer Childs; Hiroyuki Katayama; Samir Hanash; Jeffrey Marks; Mary L Disis
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-05-11

Review 6.  Safety and efficacy of tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies in the prone position: monocentric study and review of the literature.

Authors:  Antonio Catelli; Angela Santoro; Elena Antignani; Pietro Venetucci; Salvatore Minelli
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Breast cancer histopathological image classification using convolutional neural networks with small SE-ResNet module.

Authors:  Yun Jiang; Li Chen; Hai Zhang; Xiao Xiao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Much 'tattoo' about nothing; Tattoo pigment mimicking breast microcalcifications on mammography.

Authors:  Roisin M Heaney; Laura Sweeney; Clare Smith; Angela O'Brien
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2021-05-16

Review 9.  Diabetes, Obesity, and Inflammation: Impact on Clinical and Radiographic Features of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Braden Miller; Hunter Chalfant; Alexandra Thomas; Elizabeth Wellberg; Christina Henson; Molly W McNally; William E Grizzle; Ajay Jain; Lacey R McNally
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 5.923

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.