Study of role of digital breast tomosynthesis over digital mammography in the assessment of BIRADS 3 breast lesions

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - 2019
Engy A. Ali1,2, Lamiaa Adel1
1Diagnostic and Intervention Radiology Department, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
2Radiology Department (Women’s Imaging Unit), Kasr El-Ainy Hospital, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women and thus, screening has become an important health issue. Although mammography remains the standard of care for breast cancer screening and diagnosis (with biopsy), tomosynthesis (3D DBT) allows the separation of overlapping structures seen on 2D mammography and thus enables better depiction of masses or asymmetries. Results A prospective study for mammographic cases referred to our radiology unit included 60 lesions detected in 59 patients that were performed during the period from January 2016 to September 2017. Patients’ ages ranged from 26 to 72 years with mean age 51 ± 12 SD. Sixty percent of breast imaging-reporting and data system (BIRADS) 3 lesions detected by 2D digital mammography (36/60) changed their category after 3D DBT, 40% (24/60) digital mammography noticed lesions did not change their BIRADS after 3D DBT. Twenty-nine BIRADS 3 lesions out of the 60 were downgraded to BIRADS 1and 2, while 7 BIRADS 3 lesions out of the 60 were upgraded to BIRADS 4 and 5 which were all biopsied. Six out of the 7 lesions were pathologically proven ducal carcinoma and 1 out of 7 pathologically proven to be atypical ductal hyperplasia. Conclusion 3D DBT significantly reduced the need for additional mammographic views and frequent follow-up studies as it gave better characterization for all BIRADS 3 lesions.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F (2014) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.1, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon

Teertstra H, Loo C, van den Bosch M et al (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. EurRadiol 20(1):16–24

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Tapllin SH, White E (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087

Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA et al (2007) Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR 189:616–623

Helyie MA (2010) Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 48(5):917–929 Review

Durand MA (2018) Synthesized mammography: clinical evidence, appearance, and implementationby. Diagnostics (Basel) 8(2):22 Department of Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06412, USA

Yuranga Weerakkody, Radswiki, et al, Breast density, Radiopaedia, 2015

Bunovic NP , Prvulovic M, Koprivsek K, Kamenica S, et al: The value of breast tomosynthesis in the assessment of BIRADS 3 lesions. 2014. ECR/C-1905

Skaane P (2009) Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 50(1):3–14

Ambinder E, Harvey SC, Panigrahi B, Woods RW (2016) Clinical screening performance of tomosynthesis with synthesized 2D mammograms compared to tomosytheisis with full field digital mammography. Proceedings of the Radiological Society of North America Annual Meeting, Chicago, 27 November–2 December

Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan M, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan KA, Michell MJ, Dobson HM, Lim YY, Suaris T et al (2015) Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY trial). Radiology 277:697–706

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Thông tin tác giả