Lumpectomy Specimen Radiography: Does Orientation or 3-Dimensional Tomosynthesis Improve Margin Assessment?
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Mammography
/ methods
Margins of Excision
Mastectomy, Segmental
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Breast cancer specimen
Digital breast tomosynthesis
Lumpectomy specimen radiography
Orthogonal views
Surgical margins
Journal
Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes
ISSN: 1488-2361
Titre abrégé: Can Assoc Radiol J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8812910
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
20
05
2017
revised:
01
02
2019
accepted:
19
03
2019
pubmed:
14
7
2019
medline:
14
8
2019
entrez:
14
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31300313
pii: S0846-5371(19)30010-5
doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2019.03.005
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
282-291Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Canadian Association of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.