TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer
AU - Mariscotti, Giovanna
AU - Houssami, Nehmat
AU - Durando, Manuela
AU - Bergamasco, Laura
AU - Campanino, Pier Paolo
AU - Ruggieri, Chiara
AU - Regini, Elisa
AU - Luparia, Andrea
AU - Bussone, Riccardo
AU - Sapino, Anna
AU - Fonio, Paolo
AU - Gandini, Giovanni
PY - 2014/3/1
Y1 - 2014/3/1
N2 - Aim: To define the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US) in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Patients and Methods: We performed a prospective study of 200 consecutive women with histologically-proven breast cancer using the above imaging techniques. Accuracy measurements were estimated using a lesion-by-lesion analysis for unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, bilateral and all carcinomas. We also calculated sensitivity according to breast density. Results: DBT had higher sensitivity than DM (90.7% vs. 85.2%). Combined DM and DBT with US yielded a 97.7% sensitivity; despite high sensitivity of MRI (98.8%), the addition of MRI to combined DM with DBT and US did not significantly improve sensitivity. Overall accuracy did not significantly differ between MRI and DM with DBT and US (92.3% vs. 93.7%). Breast density affected sensitivity of DM and DBT (statistically significant difference for DM), not MRI. Conclusion: There is little gain in sensitivity and no gain in overall accuracy, by performing MRI for patients who have been evaluated with DM with DBT and US.
AB - Aim: To define the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US) in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Patients and Methods: We performed a prospective study of 200 consecutive women with histologically-proven breast cancer using the above imaging techniques. Accuracy measurements were estimated using a lesion-by-lesion analysis for unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, bilateral and all carcinomas. We also calculated sensitivity according to breast density. Results: DBT had higher sensitivity than DM (90.7% vs. 85.2%). Combined DM and DBT with US yielded a 97.7% sensitivity; despite high sensitivity of MRI (98.8%), the addition of MRI to combined DM with DBT and US did not significantly improve sensitivity. Overall accuracy did not significantly differ between MRI and DM with DBT and US (92.3% vs. 93.7%). Breast density affected sensitivity of DM and DBT (statistically significant difference for DM), not MRI. Conclusion: There is little gain in sensitivity and no gain in overall accuracy, by performing MRI for patients who have been evaluated with DM with DBT and US.
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Digital breast tomosynthesis
KW - Magnetic resonance imaging
KW - Mammography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84899702018&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84899702018&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 24596363
AN - SCOPUS:84899702018
VL - 34
SP - 1219
EP - 1225
JO - Anticancer Research
JF - Anticancer Research
SN - 0250-7005
IS - 3
ER -