Objectives To prospectively evaluate the accuracy in tumor extent and size assessment of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in women with known breast cancer, with pathological size as the gold standard. Methods: From May 2014 to April 2016, 50 patients with known breast cancer were enrolled in our prospective study. All patients underwent MRI on a 3T magnet and DBT projections. Two radiologists, with 15 and 7 years of experience in breast imaging respectively, evaluated in consensus each imaging set unaware of the final histological examination. MR and DBT sensitivity, PPV and accuracy were calculated, using histology as the gold standard. McNemar test was used to compare MR and DBT sensitivity. Correlation and regression analyses were used to evaluate MR vs Histology, DBT vs Histology and MR vs DBT lesions tumor size agreement to histological results. Results: On histological examination 70 lesions were detected. MRI showed 100% sensitivity, 96% PPV and 96% accuracy; DBT sensitivity was 81%, PPV 92% and accuracy 77%. McNemar test p-value was 0.0003. Lesions size Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.97 for MRI vs Histology, 0.92 for DBT vs Histology, (p-value<0.0001). MRI vs DBT regression coefficient was 0.83. Conclusions: MRI confirmed to be the most accurate imaging technique in preoperative staging of breast cancer. However, DBT showed very good accuracy, sensitivity and tumor size assessment and could be a valid tool for preoperative staging when MRI is contraindicated.

Preoperative staging in women with known breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) / Galati, Francesca; Marzocca, Flaminia; Tancredi, Andrea; Collalunga, Emmanuel; Catalano, Carlo; Pediconi, Federica. - In: CANCER AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 1927-4858. - 7:2(2018), pp. 33-42. [10.5539/cco.v7n2p33]

Preoperative staging in women with known breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Francesca Galati
Primo
;
Flaminia Marzocca
Secondo
;
Andrea Tancredi;Carlo Catalano
Penultimo
;
Federica Pediconi
Ultimo
2018

Abstract

Objectives To prospectively evaluate the accuracy in tumor extent and size assessment of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in women with known breast cancer, with pathological size as the gold standard. Methods: From May 2014 to April 2016, 50 patients with known breast cancer were enrolled in our prospective study. All patients underwent MRI on a 3T magnet and DBT projections. Two radiologists, with 15 and 7 years of experience in breast imaging respectively, evaluated in consensus each imaging set unaware of the final histological examination. MR and DBT sensitivity, PPV and accuracy were calculated, using histology as the gold standard. McNemar test was used to compare MR and DBT sensitivity. Correlation and regression analyses were used to evaluate MR vs Histology, DBT vs Histology and MR vs DBT lesions tumor size agreement to histological results. Results: On histological examination 70 lesions were detected. MRI showed 100% sensitivity, 96% PPV and 96% accuracy; DBT sensitivity was 81%, PPV 92% and accuracy 77%. McNemar test p-value was 0.0003. Lesions size Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.97 for MRI vs Histology, 0.92 for DBT vs Histology, (p-value<0.0001). MRI vs DBT regression coefficient was 0.83. Conclusions: MRI confirmed to be the most accurate imaging technique in preoperative staging of breast cancer. However, DBT showed very good accuracy, sensitivity and tumor size assessment and could be a valid tool for preoperative staging when MRI is contraindicated.
2018
digital breast tomosynthesis; magnetic resonance imaging; breast cancer; preoperative staging
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Preoperative staging in women with known breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) / Galati, Francesca; Marzocca, Flaminia; Tancredi, Andrea; Collalunga, Emmanuel; Catalano, Carlo; Pediconi, Federica. - In: CANCER AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 1927-4858. - 7:2(2018), pp. 33-42. [10.5539/cco.v7n2p33]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Galati_Preoperative-Staging -Women_2018.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/cco/article/view/0/37345
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 246.55 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
246.55 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1186681
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact