Literature DB >> 36271228

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for microcalcifications and margins to microcalcifications in breast specimens.

Claudia Neubauer1, Jannina Samantha Yilmaz2, Peter Bronsert3,4,5, Martin Pichotka6, Fabian Bamberg2, Marisa Windfuhr-Blum2, Thalia Erbes7, Jakob Neubauer2.   

Abstract

Accurate determination of resection margins in breast specimens is important as complete removal of malignancy is a prerequisite for patients' outcome. Mammography (DM) as 2D-technique provides only limited value in margin assessment. Therefore, we investigated whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has incremental value in assessing margins to microcalcifications. Three independent readers investigated breast specimens for presence of microcalcifications and the smallest distance to margins. Histopathology served as gold standard. Microcalcifications were detected in 15 out of 21 included specimens (71%). Pooled sensitivity for DM, DBT and CBCT for microcalcifications compared to preoperative DM was 0.98 (CI 0.94-0.99), 0.83 (CI 0.73-0.94) and 0.94 (CI 0.87-0.99), pooled specificity was 0.99 (CI 0.99-0.99), 0.73 (CI 0.51-0.96) and 0.60 (CI 0.35-0.85). Mean measurement error for margin determination for DM, DBT and CBCT was 10 mm, 14 mm and 6 mm (p = 0.002) with significant difference between CBCT and the other devices (p < 0.03). Mean reading time required by the readers to analyze DM, DBT and CBCT, was 36, 43 and 54 s (p < 0.001). Although DM allows reliable detection of microcalcifications, measurement of resection margin was significantly more accurate with CBCT. Thus, a combination of methods or improved CBCT might provide a more accurate determination of disease-free margins in breast specimens.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 36271228     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21616-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.996


  29 in total

1.  Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers?

Authors:  Stefanie Weigel; Thomas Decker; Eberhard Korsching; Daniela Hungermann; Werner Böcker; Walter Heindel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Evaluation of malignancy risk stratification of microcalcifications detected on mammography: a study based on the 5th edition of BI-RADS.

Authors:  Soo-Yeon Kim; Ha Yan Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Min Jung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Jung Hyun Yoon
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 3.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Physics, Artifacts, and Quality Control Considerations.

Authors:  Nikki Tirada; Guang Li; David Dreizin; Luke Robinson; Gauri Khorjekar; Sergio Dromi; Thomas Ernst
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 4.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Alice Chong; Susan P Weinstein; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Petra Macaskill; M Luke Marinovich; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-01-29       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer.

Authors:  Umberto Veronesi; Natale Cascinelli; Luigi Mariani; Marco Greco; Roberto Saccozzi; Alberto Luini; Marisel Aguilar; Ettore Marubini
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-10-17       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography.

Authors:  Daniel Förnvik; Sophia Zackrisson; Otto Ljungberg; Tony Svahn; Pontus Timberg; Anders Tingberg; Ingvar Andersson
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.990

8.  Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Rebecca Yates Coley; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Sally Herschorn; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth Rauscher; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-07-01

9.  Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane Project.

Authors:  J Thomas; A Evans; J Macartney; S E Pinder; A Hanby; I Ellis; O Kearins; T Roberts; K Clements; G Lawrence; H Bishop
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-01-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Mammography screening reduces rates of advanced and fatal breast cancers: Results in 549,091 women.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; László Tabár; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Peter B Dean; Robert A Smith; Håkan Jonsson; Sven Törnberg; Sam Li-Sheng Chen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Jean Ching-Yuan Fann; May Mei-Sheng Ku; Wendy Yi-Ying Wu; Chen-Yang Hsu; Yu-Ching Chen; Gunilla Svane; Edward Azavedo; Helene Grundström; Per Sundén; Karin Leifland; Ewa Frodis; Joakim Ramos; Birgitta Epstein; Anders Åkerlund; Ann Sundbom; Pál Bordás; Hans Wallin; Leena Starck; Annika Björkgren; Stina Carlson; Irma Fredriksson; Johan Ahlgren; Daniel Öhman; Lars Holmberg; Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.