Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- breast cancer (2)
- Breast cancer (1)
- Diagnostik (1)
- Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) (1)
- Digital mammography (1)
- Früherkennung (1)
- Galaktografie (1)
- Galaktomosynthese (1)
- MRI (1)
- MRT (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4)
Background: The management of intraductal papilloma without atypia (IDP) in breast needle biopsy remains controversial. This study investigates the upgrade rate of IDP to carcinoma and clinical and radiologic features predictive of an upgrade. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of IDP on image-guided (mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging) core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy and surgical excision of this lesion at a certified breast center between 2007 and 2017 were included in this institutional review board-approved retrospective study. Appropriate statistical tests were performed to assess clinical and radiologic characteristics associated with an upgrade to malignancy at excision. Results: For 60 women with 62 surgically removed IDPs, the upgrade rate to malignancy was 16.1% (10 upgrades, 4 invasive ductal carcinoma, 6 ductal carcinoma in situ). IDPs with upgrade to carcinoma showed a significantly greater distance to the nipple (63.5 vs. 36.8 mm; p = 0.012). No significant associations were found between upgrade to carcinoma and age, menopausal status, lesion size, microcalcifications, BI-RADS descriptors, initial BI-RADS category, and biopsy modality. Conclusion: The upgrade rate at excision for IDPs diagnosed with needle biopsy was higher than expected according to some guideline recommendations. Observation only might not be appropriate for all patients with IDP, particularly for those with peripheral IDP.
EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50–69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1–10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40–49 years and 70–74 years, although with “limited evidence”. Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50–69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40–45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become “routine mammography” in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged.
Introduction: For decades, conventional galactography was the only imaging technique capable of showing the mammary ducts. Today, diagnosis is based on a multimodal concept which combines high-resolution ultrasound with magnetic resonance (MR) mammography and ductoscopy/galactoscopy and has a sensitivity and specificity of up to 95%. This study used tomosynthesis in galactography for the first time and compared the synthetic digital 2D full-field mammograms generated with this technique with the images created using the established method of ductal sonography. Both methods should be able to detect invasive breast cancers and their precursors such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as well as being able to identify benign findings.
Material and Methods: Five patients with pathological nipple discharge were examined using ductal sonography, contrast-enhanced 3D galactography with tomosynthesis and the synthetic digital 2D full-field mammograms generated with the latter method. Evaluation of the images created with the different imaging modalities was done by three investigators with varying levels of experience with complementary breast diagnostics (1, 5 and 15 years), and their evaluations were compared with the histological findings.
Results: All 3 investigators independently evaluated the images created with ductal sonography, contrast-enhanced 3D galactography with tomosynthesis, and generated synthetic digital 2D full-field mammograms. Their evaluations were compared with the histopathological assessment of the surgical specimens resected from the 5 patients. There was 1 case of invasive breast cancer, 2 cases with ductal carcinoma in situ and 2 cases with benign findings. All 3 investigators made more mistakes when they used the standard imaging technique of ductal sonography to diagnose suspicious lesions than when they used contrast-enhanced galactography with tomosynthesis and the generated synthetic digital 2D full-field mammograms.
Conclusion: This is the first time breast tomosynthesis was used in galactography (galactomosynthesis) to create digital 3-dimensional images of suspicious findings. When used together with the generated synthetic digital 2D full-field mammograms, it could be a useful complementary procedure for the diagnosis of breast anomalies and could herald a renaissance of this method. Compared with high-resolution ductal ultrasound, the investigators achieved better results with contrast-enhanced galactography using tomosynthesis and the generated synthetic digital 2D full-field mammograms, as confirmed by histopathological findings.
Purpose: The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer.
Methods: The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure.
Recommendations: Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.