Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Oral presentation
  • Open Access

Digital breast tomosynthesis improves the accuracy of the diagnosis of circumscribed lesions because of increase of margin visibility

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Breast Cancer Research201416(Suppl 1):O6

https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3701

Published: 3 November 2014

Keywords

  • Cancer Research
  • Malignant Disease
  • Benign Lesion
  • Mammography Screening
  • Recall Rate

Introduction

Circumscribed masses are a common cause of recall for assessment but most are benign. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography (DM) in assessing the margin of circumscribed lesions as a predictor of benign or malignant disease.

Methods

The study group consisted of women recalled from breast screening for further assessment of circumscribed masses. Clients underwent co-registered DM and DBT in both MLO and CC projections. Two experienced breast radiologists evaluated DM and DBT images and a consensus decision was reached on the percentage of the margin that was well defined on DM and DBT. The lesions were categorised 1 to 4 as follows: 1 = 0 to 25%, 2 = 26 to 50%, 3 = 51 to 75% and 4 = 76 to 100%.

Results

One hundred and twenty circumscribed lesions were evaluated. Data on 118 lesions seen on the MLO view are presented. There were 93 benign lesions and 25 cancers. There was a change in distribution of margin categories between DM and DBT. More lesions were categorised as 3 or 4 on DBT (59/118) compared with DM (18/118). Of the 93 benign lesions, 17 were categorised as 3 or 4 on DM and 57 on DBT. The difference between the two proportions was significant (P < 0.0002). There were more cancers categorised as 1 on DBT (21/39 = 54%) compared with DM (20/76 = 26%); Fisher's exact test (P < 0.004).

Conclusion

Increased margin visibility of circumscribed masses by DBT improves the accuracy of mammography interpretation and may decrease the recall rate in mammography screening.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
King's College Hospital, London, UK

Copyright

© Wasan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement