Impact of Addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Digital Mammography in Lesion Characterization in Breast Cancer Patients

Overview

Journal Int J Appl Basic Med Res

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2018 Mar 20

PMID 29552533

Citations 4

Authors

Namita Mohindra

Zafar Neyaz

Vinita Agrawal

Gaurav Agarwal

Prabhakar Mishra

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Context: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a new development in mammography technology which reduces the effect of overlapping tissue.

Aims: The aim is to interrogate whether addition of DBT to digital mammography (DM) helps in better characterization of mammographic abnormalities in breast cancer patients in general and in different breast compositions.

Settings And Design: Retrospective, analytical cross-sectional study.

Subjects And Methods: Mammographic findings in 164 patients with 170 pathologically proven lesions were evaluated by using first DM alone and thereafter with addition of DBT to DM. The perceived utility of adjunct DBT was scored using a rating of 0-2. A score of 0 indicating that DM plus DBT was comparable to DM alone, 1 indicating that DM plus DBT was slightly better, and 2 indicating that DM plus DBT was definitely better.

Statistical Analysis: McNemar Chi-squares test, Fisher's exact test.

Results: On DM, 149 lesions were characterized mass with or without calcifications, 18 asymmetries with or without calcifications, 2 as architectural distortion, and 1 as microcalcification alone. Adjunct DBT helped in better morphological characterization of 17 lesions, with revelation of underlying masses in 16 asymmetries and one architectural distortion. Adjunct DBT was perceived to be slightly better than DM alone in 44.7% lesions, and definitely better in 22.9% lesions. Lesions showing score 1 or 2 improvement were significantly higher in heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts ( < 0.001).

Conclusions: Adjunct DBT improves morphological characterization of lesions in patients with breast cancer. It highlights more suspicious features of lesions that indicate the presence of cancer, particularly in dense breasts.

Citing Articles

Bright Is Not Always Better: A Pictorial Review of Hyperechoic Malignant Breast Masses.

Parashar S, Arora J, Mittal A Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2023; 33(4):532-540.

PMID: 37811173 PMC: 10556334. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768641.

Classification of asymmetry in mammography via the DenseNet convolutional neural network.

Liao T, Li L, Ouyang R, Lin X, Lai X, Cheng G Eur J Radiol Open. 2023; 11:100502.

PMID: 37448557 PMC: 10336404. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100502.

The Importance of Superb Microvascular Imaging for the Differentiation of Malignant Breast Lesions from Benign Lesions.

Arslan F, Altunkeser A, Korez M, Aksoy N, Bayramoglu Z, Karagulle M Eur J Breast Health. 2022; 18(1):48-54.

PMID: 35059591 PMC: 8734522. DOI: 10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.2021-6-1.

Association of the imaging characteristics of desmoplasia on digital breast tomosynthesis and the Ki-67 proliferation index in invasive breast cancer.

Samarzija K, Jurjevic Z Croat Med J. 2021; 62(1):59-67.

PMID: 33660962 PMC: 7976888.

References

Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles E, Smith-Bindman R . Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology. 2009; 250(3):648-57. PMC: 2680167. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503080541. View

Baker J, Lo J . Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011; 18(10):1298-310. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.06.011. View

Liberman L, Abramson A, Squires F, Glassman J, Morris E, Dershaw D . The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171(1):35-40. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.171.1.9648759. View

Carmen M, Halpern E, Kopans D, Moy B, Moore R, Goss P . Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188(4):1147-50. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.0619. View

Gilbert F, Tucker L, Gillan M, Willsher P, Cooke J, Duncan K . The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme--a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography.... Health Technol Assess. 2015; 19(4):i-xxv, 1-136. PMC: 4781321. DOI: 10.3310/hta19040. View

Desai S, Moonim M, Gill A, Punia R, Naresh K, Chinoy R . Hormone receptor status of breast cancer in India: a study of 798 tumours. Breast. 2004; 9(5):267-70. DOI: 10.1054/brst.2000.0134. View

Andersson I, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P . Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(12):2817-25. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9. View

Helvie M . Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010; 48(5):917-29. PMC: 3118307. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2010.06.009. View

Mandelson M, Oestreicher N, Porter P, White D, Finder C, Taplin S . Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(13):1081-7. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081. View

10.

Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen T, Yen A, Cohen A, Tot T . Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011; 260(3):658-63. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110469. View

11.

Roth R, Maidment A, Weinstein S, Roth S, Conant E . Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics. 2014; 34(4):E89-102. PMC: 4319526. DOI: 10.1148/rg.344130087. View

12.

Poplack S, Tosteson T, Kogel C, Nagy H . Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(3):616-23. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2231. View

13.

Mun H, Kim H, Shin H, Cha J, Ruppel P, Oh H . Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol. 2013; 68(12):1254-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.07.006. View

14.

Tewari M, Shukla H . Breast tuberculosis: diagnosis, clinical features & management. Indian J Med Res. 2005; 122(2):103-10. View

15.

Hakim C, Chough D, Ganott M, Sumkin J, Zuley M, Gur D . Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: A subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195(2):W172-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3244. View

16.

Houssami N, Skaane P . Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast. 2013; 22(2):101-108. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017. View

17.

Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard R, Geller B, Dittus K, Braithwaite D . Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(9):807-16. PMC: 3699693. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.307. View

18.

Smith R, Duffy S, Gabe R, Tabar L, Yen A, Chen T . The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned?. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004; 42(5):793-806, v. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.014. View

19.

Yang T, Liang H, Chou C, Huang J, Pan H . The adjunctive digital breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer. Biomed Res Int. 2013; 2013:597253. PMC: 3703369. DOI: 10.1155/2013/597253. View