Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS Technology, Specimen Radiography System (SRS) and Tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which System Can Optimise Surgical Therapy?

Diagnostic accuracy of resection margin in specimen radiography: digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared to full-field digital mammography for evaluating tumor-free resection margins in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgery, reducing re-excision rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 170 patients, with proven breast cancer and eligible for breast-conserving surgery, were enrolled. Intraoperative specimens underwent digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Two breast radiologists, with ten years of experience in breast imaging, in batch mode, evaluated tumor-free resection margins and the distance between the margins and lesion. Histopathological findings were considered the standard of reference.

RESULTS

We used the correlation analysis to evaluate the agreement between measures of tumor-free resection margins obtained with digital mammography and the true value (histopathological findings), and between digital breast tomosynthesis and histopathological findings. The size evaluation determined by digital breast tomosynthesis was more accurately correlated with that found by pathology; the calculated Pearson's correlation coefficient of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography to the pathologically determined tumor-free resection margins were 0.92 and 0.79 in CC view and 0.92 and 0.72 in LL view, respectively. Compared with the pathologically determined tumor-free resection margins, the size determined by both imaging modalities was, on average, overestimated. Bland-Altman analysis showed an excellent inter readers agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital breast tomosynthesis is more accurate in assessment of margin status than digital mammography; it could be a more accurate technique than full-field digital mammography for the intraoperative delineating of tumor resection margins.

Lumpectomy Specimen Radiography: Does Orientation or 3-Dimensional Tomosynthesis Improve Margin Assessment?

PURPOSE

Our purpose was twofold. First, we sought to determine whether 2 orthogonal oriented views of excised breast cancer specimens could improve surgical margin assessment compared to a single unoriented view. Second, we sought to determine whether 3D tomosynthesis could improve surgical margin assessment compared to 2D mammography alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one consecutive specimens were prospectively imaged using 4 protocols: single view unoriented 2D image acquired on a specimen unit (1VSU), 2 orthogonal oriented 2D images acquired on the specimen unit (2VSU), 2 orthogonal oriented 2D images acquired on a mammogram unit (2V2DMU), and 2 orthogonal oriented 3D images acquired on the mammogram unit (2V3DMU). Three breast imagers randomly assessed surgical margin of the 41 specimens with each protocol. Surgical margin per histopathology was considered the gold standard.

RESULTS

The average area under the curve (AUC) was 0.60 for 1VSU, 0.66 for 2VSU, 0.68 for 2V2DMU, and 0.60 for 2V3DMU. Comparing AUCs for 2VSU vs 1VSU by reader showed improved diagnostic accuracy using 2VSU; however, this difference was only statistically significant for reader 3 (0.73 vs 0.63, P = .0455). Comparing AUCs for 2V3DMU vs 2V2DMU by reader showed mixed results, with reader 1 demonstrating increased accuracy (0.72 vs 0.68, P = .5984), while readers 2 and 3 demonstrated decreased accuracy (0.50 vs 0.62, P = .1089 and 0.58 vs 0.75, P = .0269).

CONCLUSIONS

2VSU showed improved accuracy in surgical margin prediction compared to 1VSU, although this was not statistically significant for all readers. 3D tomosynthesis did not improve surgical margin assessment.

Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography-Which modality provides more accurate prediction of margin status in specimen radiography?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reliability of tumor margin assessment in specimen radiography (SR) using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in comparison to postoperative histopathology margin status as the gold standard.

METHODS

After ethics committee approval, 102 consecutive patients who underwent breast conservative surgery for nonpalpable proven breast cancer were prospectively included. All patients underwent ultrasound/mammography-guided wire localization of their lesions. After excision, each specimen was marked for orientation and imaged using FFDM and DBT. Two blinded radiologists (R1, R2) independently analyzed images acquired with both modalities. Readers identified in which direction the lesion was closest to the specimen margin and to measure the margin width. Their findings were compared with the final histopathological analysis. True positive margin status was defined as a margin measuring <1mm for invasive cancer and 5mm for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at imaging and pathology.

RESULTS

For FFDM, correct margin direction was identified in 45 cases (44%) by R1 and in 37 cases (36%) by R2. For DBT, 69 cases (68%) were correctly identified by R1 and 70 cases (69%) by R2. Overall accuracy was 40% for FFDM and 69% for DBT; the difference was statistically significant (p<0.0001). Sensitivity in terms of correct assessment of margin status was significantly better for DBT than FFDM (77% versus 62%).

CONCLUSION

SR using DBT is significantly superior to FFDM regarding identification of the closest margin and sensitivity in assessment of margin status.

Digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for detection of breast cancer in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic ability of specimen radiography using digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for detecting breast cancer and evaluating its extension in the intraoperative specimen.

METHODS

Sixty-five specimens from 65 women (median 62 years; range 34-86) obtained during breast-conserving surgery were prospectively investigated. Specimens underwent DM (25-40 kVp, 12-322 mA s) and DBT (25-34 kVp, 13-137 mA) in two orthogonal planes, anteroposterior (AP) and latero-lateral (LL). Images were interpreted by a radiologist to detect invasive lesions and their extensive intraductal components (EIC) or ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS); afterwards, they were compared with histopathological findings.

RESULTS

In AP views, 96 % of the invasive lesions were detected by both the methods. Of the EICs, 55 and 65 % were detected by DM and DBT, respectively (P = 0.61). Of the DICSs, 31 and 38 % were detected by DM and DBT, respectively (P > 0.99). In LL views, 71 and 13 % of the invasive lesions were detected by DBT and DM, respectively (P < 0.0001). Of the EICs, 42 and 10 % were detected by DBT and DM, respectively (P = 0.0078). Of the 13 DCISs, 42 and 8 % were detected by DBT and DM, respectively (P = 0.32). The whole lesion and contour could be delineated in 45 % by DBT and in 6.2 % by DM (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

DBT could detect breast cancer more accurately than DM in LL views, indicating its potential to more precisely diagnose vertical invasion.

Comparison of Sonography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Locate Intramammary Marker Clips

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of sonography versus digital breast tomosynthesis to locate intramammary marker clips placed under ultrasound guidance. Patients and Methods: Fifty patients with suspicion of breast cancer (lesion diameter less than 2 cm [cT1]) had ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy with placement of a marker clip in the center of the tumor. Intramammary marker clips were subsequently located with both sonography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Results: Sonography detected no dislocation of intrammammary marker clips in 42 of 50 patients (84 %); dislocation was reported in 8 patients (16 %) with a maximum dislocation of 7 mm along the x-, y- or z-axis. Digital breast tomosynthesis showed accurate placement without dislocation of the intramammary marker clip in 48 patients (96 %); 2 patients (4 %) had a maximum clip dislocation of 3 mm along the x-, y- or z-axis (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of digital breast tomosynthesis could improve the accuracy when locating intramammary marker clips compared to sonography and could, in future, be used to complement or even completely replace sonography.

Evaluation of Newly Adapted Clip Marker System in Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy for Suspicion of Breast Cancer

Introduction: A newly adapted clip system for intramammary marking during ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy for suspicion of breast cancer is described and evaluated here. Material and Method: Fifty patients with suspicion of breast cancer (cT2) had ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy using a newly adapted clip marker system (HistoCore™ and O-Twist Marker™). Subsequently, ultrasound follow-up and tomosynthesis scans were done to determine the location of the marker clips. Results: No dislocation of the marker clip was detected on ultrasound in 45 of 50 patients (90 %), and 5 patients (10 %) had a maximum dislocation of 5 mm along the x-, y- or z-axis. Tomosynthesis scans demonstrated precise placement without dislocation of the clip markers in 48 patients (96 %); 2 patients (4 %) had a maximum dislocation of 3 mm along the x-, y- or z-axis. Conclusion: The newly developed clip marker system, a combination of a single-use breast biopsy needle and a precise, length-adapted intramammary marker clip, represents a further improvement in oncological therapy. This is of particular importance for patients requiring subsequent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, as in cases with complete tumour remission, there is no target point for preoperative, ultrasound-guided wire marking.