Breast tomosynthesis: Accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography

Background: Mammographic tumor size measurement can be difficult because breast structures are superimposed onto a two-dimensional (2D) plane, potentially obscuring the tumor outline. Breast tomosynthesis (BT) is a 3D X-ray imaging technique in which low-dose images are acquired over a limited angular range at a total dose comparable to digital mammography (DM). These low-dose images are used to mathematically reconstruct a 3D image volume of the breast, thus reducing the problem of superimposed tissue. Purpose: To investigate whether breast cancer size can be more accurately assessed with breast tomosynthesis than with digital mammography and ultrasonography (US), by reducing the disturbance effect of the projected anatomy. Material and Methods: A prototype BT system was used. The main inclusion criterion for BT examination was subtle but suspicious findings of breast cancer on 2D mammography. Sixty-two women with 73 breast cancers were included. BT, DM, and US sizes were measured independently by experienced radiologists without knowledge of the pathology results, which were used as reference. Results: The tumor outline could be determined in significantly more cases with BT (63) and US (60) than DM (49). BT and US size correlated well with pathology (R=0.86 and R=0.85, respectively), and significantly better than DM size (R=0.71). Accordingly, staging was significantly more accurate with BT than with DM. Conclusion: The study indicates that BT is superior to DM in the assessment of breast tumor size and stage.

[1]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Cases , 2010, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[2]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings , 2008, European Radiology.

[3]  S. Lipsitz,et al.  Does MRI predict pathologic tumor response in women with breast cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy? , 2007, Journal of surgical oncology.

[4]  L. Plant,et al.  Prediction of breast tumor size by mammography and sonography--A breast screen experience. , 2007, Breast.

[5]  D. Vanel The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[6]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Optimizing filtered backprojection reconstruction for a breast tomosynthesis prototype device , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[7]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis using an amorphous selenium flat panel detector , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[8]  Melinda J. Staiger,et al.  Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography , 2005, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[9]  Donald L Weaver,et al.  Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements , 2004, Modern Pathology.

[10]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. , 2003, European journal of radiology.

[11]  T. Hieken,et al.  Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. , 2001, American journal of surgery.

[12]  J. Teubner Echomammography: Technique and Results , 2000 .

[13]  E. Sickles,et al.  Radiological Diagnosis of Breast Diseases , 2000, Medical Radiology.

[14]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[15]  P. D. Hooge,et al.  Clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasonography as methods of measuring the size of breast cancer: a comparison , 1998 .

[16]  T. Pilgram,et al.  Invasive breast cancer: mammographic measurement. , 1996, Radiology.

[17]  H. Bartelink,et al.  Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. , 1992, European journal of cancer.

[18]  D W Kinne,et al.  Staging and follow‐up of breast cancer patients , 1991, Cancer.

[19]  A. Luini,et al.  Primary chemotherapy to avoid mastectomy in tumors with diameters of three centimeters or more. , 1990, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  C. Jacquillat,et al.  Results of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in the breast‐conserving treatment of 250 patients with all stages of infiltrative breast cancer , 1990, Cancer.

[21]  Donald E. Henson,et al.  Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases , 1989 .

[22]  B. Fornage,et al.  Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size , 1987, Cancer.

[23]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[24]  S. Koscielny,et al.  Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination. , 1984, British Journal of Cancer.

[25]  Wright,et al.  SYSTEMIC PATHOLOGY , 1967, The Ulster Medical Journal.