Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis, digital mammography and a dedicated digital specimen radiography system versus pathological assessment of excised breast lesions
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M,Fisher ER, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1233-41. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152FisherBAndersonSBryantJMargoleseRGDeutschMFisherERet alTwenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancerN Engl J Med200234712334110.1056/NEJMoa02215212393820Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A, et al. Twenty-year follow up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1227-32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989VeronesiUCascinelliNMarianiLGrecoMSaccozziRLuiniAet alTwenty-year follow up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancerN Engl J Med200234712273210.1056/NEJMoa02098912393819Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Morrow M. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 717-30. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5HoussamiNMacaskillPMarinovichMLMorrowMThe association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysisAnn Surg Oncol2014217173010.1245/s10434-014-3480-5570503524473640Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Landercasper J, Borgert AJ, Fayanju OM, Cody H 3rd, Feldman S, Greenberg C, et al. Factors associated with reoperation in breast-conserving surgery for cancer: a prospective study of American Society of Breast Surgeon Members. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26: 3321-36. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07547-wLandercasperJBorgertAJFayanjuOMCodyH 3rdFeldmanSGreenbergCet alFactors associated with reoperation in breast-conserving surgery for cancer: a prospective study of American Society of Breast Surgeon MembersAnn Surg Oncol20192633213610.1245/s10434-019-07547-w673382431342360Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
McEvoy MP, Landercasper J, Naik HR, Feldman S. Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic. Gland Surg 2018; 7: 536-53. doi: 10.21037/gs.2018.11.03McEvoyMPLandercasperJNaikHRFeldmanSUpdate of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemicGland Surg201875365310.21037/gs.2018.11.03632325830687627Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mall S, Lewis S, Brennan P, Noakes J, Mello-Thoms C. The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a review. J Med Radiat Sci 2017; 64: 203-211. doi: 10.1002/jmrs.230MallSLewisSBrennanPNoakesJMello-ThomsCThe role of digital breast tomosynthesis in the breast assessment clinic: a reviewJ Med Radiat Sci20176420321110.1002/jmrs.230558765728374502Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Polat YD, Taşkın F, Çildağ MB, Tanyeri A, Soyder A, Ergin F. The role of tomosynthesis in intraoperative specimen evaluation. Breast J 2018; 24: 992-6. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13070PolatYDTaşkınFÇildağMBTanyeriASoyderAErginFThe role of tomosynthesis in intraoperative specimen evaluationBreast J201824992610.1111/tbj.1307029781228Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Urano M, Shiraki N, Kawai T, Goto T, Endo Y, Yoshimoto N, et al. Digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for detection of breast cancer in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer 2016; 23: 706-11. doi: 10.1007/s12282-015-0628-5UranoMShirakiNKawaiTGotoTEndoYYoshimotoNet alDigital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for detection of breast cancer in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgeryBreast Cancer2016237061110.1007/s12282-015-0628-526198975Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Romanucci G, Mercogliano S, Carucci E, Cina A, Zantedeschi E, Caneva A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of resection margin in specimen radiography: digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography. Radiol Med 2021; 126: 768-773. doi: 10.1007/s11547-021-01337-9RomanucciGMercoglianoSCarucciECinaAZantedeschiECanevaAet alDiagnostic accuracy of resection margin in specimen radiography: digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammographyRadiol Med202112676877310.1007/s11547-021-01337-933625658Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Schulz-Wendtland R, Dilbat G, Bani M, Fasching PA, Lux MP, Wenkel E, et al. Full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS technology versus tomosynthesis (DBT) − which system increases the quality of intraoperative imaging? Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2012; 72: 532-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1314942Schulz-WendtlandRDilbatGBaniMFaschingPALuxMPWenkelEet alFull field digital mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS technology versus tomosynthesis (DBT) − which system increases the quality of intraoperative imaging?Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd201272532810.1055/s-0032-1314942465115626640287Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Garlaschi A, Fregatti P, Oddone C, Friedman D, Houssami N, Calabrese M, et al. Intraoperative digital breast tomosynthesis using a dedicated device is more accurate than standard intraoperative mammography for identifying positive margins. Clin Radiol 2019; 74: 974.e1-e6. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.08.004GarlaschiAFregattiPOddoneCFriedmanDHoussamiNCalabreseMet alIntraoperative digital breast tomosynthesis using a dedicated device is more accurate than standard intraoperative mammography for identifying positive marginsClin Radiol201974974e1-e610.1016/j.crad.2019.08.00431521327Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Partain N, Calvo C, Mokdad A, Colton A, Pouns K, Clifford E, et al. Differences in re-excision rates for breast-conserving surgery using intraoperative 2D versus 3D tomosynthesis specimen radiograph. Ann Surg Oncol 2020; 27: 4767-76. doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08877-wPartainNCalvoCMokdadAColtonAPounsKCliffordEet alDifferences in re-excision rates for breast-conserving surgery using intraoperative 2D versus 3D tomosynthesis specimen radiographAnn Surg Oncol20202747677610.1245/s10434-020-08877-w32740738Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Park KU, Kuerer HM, Rauch GM, Leung JWT, Sahin AA, Wei W, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26: 1720-8. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07226-wParkKUKuererHMRauchGMLeungJWTSahinAAWeiWet alDigital breast tomosynthesis for intraoperative margin assessment during breast-conserving surgeryAnn Surg Oncol2019261720810.1245/s10434-019-07226-w30877499Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wang Y, Ebuoma L, Saksena M, Liu B, Specht M, Rafferty E. Clinical evaluation of a mobile digital specimen radiography system for intraoperative specimen verification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 457-62. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11408WangYEbuomaLSaksenaMLiuBSpechtMRaffertyEClinical evaluation of a mobile digital specimen radiography system for intraoperative specimen verificationAJR Am J Roentgenol20142034576210.2214/AJR.13.1140825055285Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Miller CL, Coopey SB, Rafferty E, Gadd M, Smith BL, Specht MC. Comparison of intra-operative specimen mammography to standard specimen mammography for excision of non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 155: 513-9. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3700-8MillerCLCoopeySBRaffertyEGaddMSmithBLSpechtMCComparison of intra-operative specimen mammography to standard specimen mammography for excision of non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized trialBreast Cancer Res Treat2016155513910.1007/s10549-016-3700-826872902Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mariscotti G, Durando M, Pavan LJ, Tagliafico A, Campanino PP, Castellano I, et al. Intraoperative breast specimen assessment in breast conserving surgery: comparison between standard mammography imaging and a remote radiological system. Br J Radiol 2020; 93: 20190785. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190785MariscottiGDurandoMPavanLJTagliaficoACampaninoPPCastellanoIet alIntraoperative breast specimen assessment in breast conserving surgery: comparison between standard mammography imaging and a remote radiological systemBr J Radiol2020932019078510.1259/bjr.20190785721756932101449Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbert FJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 1296-316. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015SardanelliFBoetesCBorischBDeckerTFedericoMGilbertFJet alMagnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working groupEur J Cancer201046129631610.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.01520304629Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Joukainen S, Okuma H, Kaarela O, Laaksonen E, Kärjä V, Vanninen R, et al. Can supine breast magnetic resonance imaging help hit the target in extreme oncoplastic surgery? Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47: 2788-96. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.07.027JoukainenSOkumaHKaarelaOLaaksonenEKärjäVVanninenRet alCan supine breast magnetic resonance imaging help hit the target in extreme oncoplastic surgery?Eur J Surg Oncol20214727889610.1016/j.ejso.2021.07.02734412958Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Amer HA, Schmitzberger F, Ingold-Heppner B, Kussmaul J, El Tohamy MF, Tantawy HI, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography − which modality provides more accurate prediction of margin status in specimen radiography? Eur J Radiol 2017; 93: 258-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.041AmerHASchmitzbergerFIngold-HeppnerBKussmaulJElTohamy MFTantawyHIet alDigital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography − which modality provides more accurate prediction of margin status in specimen radiography?Eur J Radiol2017932586410.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.04128668424Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Chen JY, Huang YJ, Zhang LL, Yang CQ, Wang K. Comparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysis. J Breast Cancer 2018; 21: 321-29. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36ChenJYHuangYJZhangLLYangCQWangKComparison of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery and breast-conserving surgery alone: a meta-analysisJ Breast Cancer2018213212910.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36615815430275861Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Laws A, Brar MS, Bouchard-Fortier A, Leong B, Quan ML. Intraoperative margin assessment in wire-localized breast-conserving surgery for invasive cancer: a population-level comparison of techniques. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23: 3290-6. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5401-2LawsABrarMSBouchard-FortierALeongBQuanMLIntraoperative margin assessment in wire-localized breast-conserving surgery for invasive cancer: a population-level comparison of techniquesAnn Surg Oncol2016233290610.1245/s10434-016-5401-227406094Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
St John ER, Al-Khudairi R, Ashrafian H, Athanasiou T, Takats Z, Hadjiminas DJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2017; 265: 300-10. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001897StJohn ERAl-KhudairiRAshrafianHAthanasiouTTakatsZHadjiminasDJet alDiagnostic accuracy of intraoperative techniques for margin assessment in breast cancer surgery: a meta-analysisAnn Surg20172653001010.1097/SLA.000000000000189727429028Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Versteegden DPA, Keizer LGG, Schlooz-Vries MS, Duijm LEM, Wauters CAP, Strobbe LJA. Performance characteristics of specimen radiography for margin assessment for ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 166: 669-79. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4475-2VersteegdenDPAKeizerLGGSchlooz-VriesMSDuijmLEMWautersCAPStrobbeLJAPerformance characteristics of specimen radiography for margin assessment for ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic reviewBreast Cancer Res Treat20171666697910.1007/s10549-017-4475-228831674Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mazouni C, Rouzier R, Balleyguier C, Sideris L, Rochard F, Delaloge S, et al. Specimen radiography as predictor of resection margin status in non-palpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 2006; 61: 789-96. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.04.017MazouniCRouzierRBalleyguierCSiderisLRochardFDelalogeSet alSpecimen radiography as predictor of resection margin status in non-palpable breast lesionsClin Radiol2006617899610.1016/j.crad.2006.04.01716905388Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Britton PD, Sonoda LI, Yamamoto AK, Koo B, Soh E, Goud A. Breast surgical specimen radiographs: how reliable are they? Eur J Radiol 2011; 79: 245-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.012BrittonPDSonodaLIYamamotoAKKooBSohEGoudABreast surgical specimen radiographs: how reliable are they?Eur J Radiol201179245910.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.01220303687Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Leung BST, Wan AYH, Au AKY, Lo SSW, Wong WWC, Khoo JLS. Can intra-operative specimen radiograph predict resection margin status for radio-guided occult lesion localisation lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ presenting with microcalcifications? Hong Kong J Radiol 2015; 18: 11-21. doi: 10.12809/hkjr1414265LeungBSTWanAYHAuAKYLoSSWWongWWCKhooJLSCan intra-operative specimen radiograph predict resection margin status for radio-guided occult lesion localisation lumpectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ presenting with microcalcifications?Hong Kong J Radiol201518112110.12809/hkjr1414265Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Williams D, McCormack S. Intraoperative mammography for breast cancer surgery: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2019. [cited 2022 Apr 15]. PMID: 31411841. Avilable at: https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31411841/WilliamsDMcCormackSIntraoperative mammography for breast cancer surgery: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines [Internet]Ottawa (ON)Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health;2019[cited 2022 Apr 15]. PMID: 31411841. Avilable athttps:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31411841/Search in Google Scholar
Butler-Henderson K, Lee AH, Price RI, Waring K. Intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving therapy: a systematic review. Breast 2014; 23: 112-9. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.002Butler-HendersonKLeeAHPriceRIWaringKIntraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving therapy: a systematic reviewBreast201423112910.1016/j.breast.2014.01.00224468464Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mario J, Venkataraman S, Fein-Zachary V, Knox M, Brook A, Slanetz P. Lumpectomy specimen radiography: does orientation or 3-dimensional tomosynthesis improve margin assessment? Can Assoc Radiol J 2019; 70: 282-91. doi: 10.1016/j.carj.2019.03.005MarioJVenkataramanSFein-ZacharyVKnoxMBrookASlanetzPLumpectomy specimen radiography: does orientation or 3-dimensional tomosynthesis improve margin assessment?Can Assoc Radiol J2019702829110.1016/j.carj.2019.03.00531300313Open DOISearch in Google Scholar