The Tomosynthesis Broken Halo Sign: Diagnostic Utility for the Classification of Newly Diagnosed Breast Tumors.
breast cancer
broken halo sign
tomosynthesis
Journal
Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
ISSN: 2379-139X
Titre abrégé: Tomography
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101671170
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Oct 2023
24 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
15
08
2023
revised:
13
10
2023
accepted:
19
10
2023
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
21
11
2023
entrez:
21
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Compared to conventional 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) offers greater breast lesion detection rates. Ring-like hypodense artifacts surrounding dense lesions are a common byproduct of DBT. This study's purpose was to assess whether minuscule changes spanning this halo-termed the "broken halo sign"-could improve lesion classification. This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics review board. After screening 288 consecutive patients, DBT studies of 191 female participants referred for routine mammography with a subsequent histologically verified finding of the breast were assessed. Examined variables included patient age, histological diagnosis, architectural distortion, maximum size, maximum halo depth, conspicuous margins, irregular shape and broken halo sign. While a higher halo strength was indicative of malignancy in general ( DBT-associated halo artifacts warrant thorough investigation in newly found breast lesions as they are associated with malignant tumors. The "broken halo sign"-the presence of small lines of variable diameter spanning the peritumoral areas of hypodensity-is a strong indicator of malignancy, especially in dense breasts, where architectural distortion may be obfuscated due to the surrounding tissue.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Compared to conventional 2D mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) offers greater breast lesion detection rates. Ring-like hypodense artifacts surrounding dense lesions are a common byproduct of DBT. This study's purpose was to assess whether minuscule changes spanning this halo-termed the "broken halo sign"-could improve lesion classification.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics review board. After screening 288 consecutive patients, DBT studies of 191 female participants referred for routine mammography with a subsequent histologically verified finding of the breast were assessed. Examined variables included patient age, histological diagnosis, architectural distortion, maximum size, maximum halo depth, conspicuous margins, irregular shape and broken halo sign.
RESULTS
RESULTS
While a higher halo strength was indicative of malignancy in general (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DBT-associated halo artifacts warrant thorough investigation in newly found breast lesions as they are associated with malignant tumors. The "broken halo sign"-the presence of small lines of variable diameter spanning the peritumoral areas of hypodensity-is a strong indicator of malignancy, especially in dense breasts, where architectural distortion may be obfuscated due to the surrounding tissue.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37987341
pii: tomography9060155
doi: 10.3390/tomography9060155
pmc: PMC10661244
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1987-1998Références
Breast Cancer. 2013 Jul;20(3):204-12
pubmed: 23456738
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014 Feb;95(2):124-33
pubmed: 24456895
J Digit Imaging. 2010 Oct;23(5):554-61
pubmed: 19760292
Cells. 2021 Apr 29;10(5):
pubmed: 33946660
Br J Radiol. 2018 Dec;91(1092):20180444
pubmed: 30059237
Radiology. 1988 Oct;169(1):55-8
pubmed: 2843941
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jan;20(1):16-24
pubmed: 19657655
Eur Radiol. 2017 Feb;27(2):570-577
pubmed: 27236817
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016 Jun;169(1-4):199-203
pubmed: 26769904
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019 Sep 23;5(1):66
pubmed: 31548545
Radiology. 2008 Jan;246(1):58-70
pubmed: 18096529
JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507
pubmed: 25058084
Pathobiology. 2015 Sep;82(3-4):142-52
pubmed: 26330355
Radiographics. 2019 Mar-Apr;39(2):413-426
pubmed: 30768362
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):16-27
pubmed: 26667886
Eur Radiol. 2004 Sep;14(9):1647-53
pubmed: 15083333
Eur Radiol. 2008 Dec;18(12):2817-25
pubmed: 18641998
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Jul;171(1):35-40
pubmed: 9648759
Radiography (Lond). 2021 Nov;27(4):1124-1129
pubmed: 34120844
Clin Imaging. 2019 May - Jun;55:188-195
pubmed: 30236642
Prog Clin Biol Res. 1977;12:213-21
pubmed: 918101
Med Phys. 2006 Jul;33(7):2461-71
pubmed: 16898449
Front Genet. 2022 Feb 04;13:822858
pubmed: 35186038
Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):367-75
pubmed: 18180338
Radiology. 1996 Apr;199(1):105-8
pubmed: 8633130
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Apr 15;13(8):
pubmed: 37189524
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Nov;121:154-171
pubmed: 31581056
Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2019 Nov;68(11):1733-1745
pubmed: 31598757
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun;14(7):583-9
pubmed: 23623721
Hua Xi Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2001 Dec;32(4):566-8
pubmed: 12528550
Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:581706
pubmed: 25400950