Cargando…

Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for microcalcifications and margins to microcalcifications in breast specimens

Accurate determination of resection margins in breast specimens is important as complete removal of malignancy is a prerequisite for patients’ outcome. Mammography (DM) as 2D-technique provides only limited value in margin assessment. Therefore, we investigated whether cone-beam computed tomography...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neubauer, Claudia, Yilmaz, Jannina Samantha, Bronsert, Peter, Pichotka, Martin, Bamberg, Fabian, Windfuhr-Blum, Marisa, Erbes, Thalia, Neubauer, Jakob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9587219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36271228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21616-3
Descripción
Sumario:Accurate determination of resection margins in breast specimens is important as complete removal of malignancy is a prerequisite for patients’ outcome. Mammography (DM) as 2D-technique provides only limited value in margin assessment. Therefore, we investigated whether cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has incremental value in assessing margins to microcalcifications. Three independent readers investigated breast specimens for presence of microcalcifications and the smallest distance to margins. Histopathology served as gold standard. Microcalcifications were detected in 15 out of 21 included specimens (71%). Pooled sensitivity for DM, DBT and CBCT for microcalcifications compared to preoperative DM was 0.98 (CI 0.94–0.99), 0.83 (CI 0.73–0.94) and 0.94 (CI 0.87–0.99), pooled specificity was 0.99 (CI 0.99–0.99), 0.73 (CI 0.51–0.96) and 0.60 (CI 0.35–0.85). Mean measurement error for margin determination for DM, DBT and CBCT was 10 mm, 14 mm and 6 mm (p = 0.002) with significant difference between CBCT and the other devices (p < 0.03). Mean reading time required by the readers to analyze DM, DBT and CBCT, was 36, 43 and 54 s (p < 0.001). Although DM allows reliable detection of microcalcifications, measurement of resection margin was significantly more accurate with CBCT. Thus, a combination of methods or improved CBCT might provide a more accurate determination of disease-free margins in breast specimens.