Reoperation rate of ductal carcinoma in situ: impact of tomosynthesis (3D) and spot magnification

被引:0
|
作者
Arlan, Kirill [1 ,2 ]
Meretoja, Tuomo J. [2 ,3 ]
Hukkinen, Katja [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Helsinki, HUS Diagnost Ctr, Radiol, POB 140, Helsinki 00029, Finland
[2] Helsinki Univ Hosp, POB 140, Helsinki 00029, Finland
[3] Univ Helsinki, Comprehens Canc Ctr, Breast Surg Unit, Helsinki, Finland
关键词
Spot magnification; tomosynthesis; ductal carcinoma in situ; mammography; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; SCREEN-FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; LOCAL RECURRENCE; CANCER; CALCIFICATIONS; CONSERVATION; THERAPY; MICROCALCIFICATIONS; METAANALYSIS; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1177/02841851221078931
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background Surgical planning depends on precise preoperative assessment of the radiological extent of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Despite different modalities used, reoperation rates for DCIS due to involved margins are high. Purpose To evaluate the impact of additional imaging views (spot magnification, tomosynthesis) on surgical reoperation rate of DCIS. Material and Methods The retrospective single institute study includes 157 patients with biopsy-proven pure DCIS seen on mammogram as microcalcifications and treated with breast-conserving surgery. Patients have been divided into three groups according to additional imaging performed: spot magnification, tomosynthesis, and none. All breast images (mammograms, spot magnification, tomosynthesis) were reviewed and the maximum extent of pathological microcalcifications was recorded. Radiological size was compared to final histopathological size. Reoperation rate due to inadequate margins was recorded. Results Reoperation rates (25%) due to inadequate margins were as follows: spot (18%), tomosynthesis (27%), none (31%); P = 0.488. Spot magnification, tomosynthesis, and digital zoom of full-field digital mammography predicted similarly the final histopathological size. Reoperation group had a significantly greater preoperative radiological median size (26 mm vs. 20 mm; P = 0.014) as well as median size of disease on final histopathological report (29 mm vs. 14 mm; P < 0.001). Discrepancy between radiological and final histopathological size became greater with increasing DCIS extent. Conclusion The main factors for reoperations are DCIS size and discordance between radiological and histopathological sizes. The use of additional imaging views (spot magnification, tomosynthesis) did not reduce reoperation rate.
引用
收藏
页码:479 / 488
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade
    Geunwon Kim
    Peter G. Mikhael
    Tawakalitu O. Oseni
    Manisha Bahl
    European Radiology, 2020, 30 : 6089 - 6098
  • [32] Registration Using Nanotube Stationary Tomosynthesis: Comparison of 3D/3D to 3D/2D Methods
    Frederick, B.
    Lalush, D.
    Chang, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06)
  • [33] INFLUENCE OF LOCAL TREATMENT ON THE RECURRENCE RATE OF DUCTAL CARCINOMA IN-SITU
    WARNEKE, J
    GROSSKLAUS, D
    DAVIS, J
    STEA, B
    BEBB, G
    TAYLOR, C
    HASTINGS, R
    VILLAR, H
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 1995, 180 (06) : 683 - 688
  • [34] Incidence Rate and Outcomes for Palpable Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in the Contemporary Era
    Barrak, Dany
    Tung, Lily
    Ayoub, Zeina
    Ring, Alexander
    Raghavendra, Akshara Singareeka
    Tripathy, Debu
    Sener, Stephen
    MacDonald, Heather
    Nelson, Maria
    Bhasin, Meenakshi
    Lang, Julie E.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 23 : 36 - 37
  • [35] Dynamic Reconstruction and Rendering of 3D Tomosynthesis Images
    Kuo, Johnny
    Ringer, Peter A.
    Fallows, Steven G.
    Bakic, Predrag R.
    Maidment, Andrew D. A.
    Ng, Susan
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2011: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2011, 7961
  • [36] Rapid acquisition tomosynthesis system for 3D mammography
    Eberhard, Jeffrey W.
    Staudinger, Paul
    Schmitz, Andrea
    McCoy, Julie
    Rumsey, Michael
    Landberg, Cynthia E.
    Claus, Bernhard
    Carson, Paul
    Goodsitt, Mitchell
    Chan, Heang-Ping
    Roubidoux, Marilyn
    Thomas, Jerry A.
    Osland, Jacqueline
    ICIS '06: INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF IMAGING SCIENCE, FINAL PROGRAM AND PROCEEDINGS: LINKING THE EXPLOSION OF IMAGING APPLICATIONS WITH THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF IMAGING, 2006, : 401 - +
  • [37] A new method for 3D reconstruction in digital tomosynthesis
    Claus, BEH
    Eberhard, JW
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2002: IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL 1-3, 2002, 4684 : 814 - 824
  • [38] Analysis of the utility of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis
    Kikuyama, M.
    Kato, M.
    Kaisaki, S.
    Yao, Y.
    Sakatani, T.
    BREAST, 2019, 44 : S51 - S52
  • [39] 3D object localization and visualization in breast tomosynthesis
    Li, LH
    Chu, Y
    Hu, XH
    Kallergi, M
    Thomas, JA
    Clark, RA
    Eberhard, JW
    Claus, BEH
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, : 202 - 206
  • [40] Simulation of 3D objects into breast tomosynthesis images
    Shaheen, E.
    Zanca, F.
    Sisini, F.
    Zhang, G.
    Jacobs, J.
    Bosmans, H.
    RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2010, 139 (1-3) : 108 - 112