Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis, digital mammography and a dedicated digital specimen radiography system versus pathological assessment of excised breast lesions

1Fisher 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/NEJMoa022152 Fisher B Anderson S Bryant J Margolese RG Deutsch MFisher 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 10.1056/NEJMoa02215212393820Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

2Veronesi 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/NEJMoa020989 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 10.1056/NEJMoa02098912393819Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

3Houssami 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/s10434-014-3480-5 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 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5570503524473640Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

4Landercasper 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-w 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 10.1245/s10434-019-07547-w673382431342360Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

5McEvoy 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.2018.11.03 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 10.21037/gs.2018.11.03632325830687627Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

6Mall 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.230 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 10.1002/jmrs.230558765728374502Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

7Polat 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.13070 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 10.1111/tbj.1307029781228Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

8Urano 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/s12282-015-0628-5 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 10.1007/s12282-015-0628-526198975Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

9Romanucci 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/s11547-021-01337-9 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 10.1007/s11547-021-01337-933625658Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

10Schulz-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-0032-1314942 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 10.1055/s-0032-1314942465115626640287Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

11Garlaschi 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.2019.08.004 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 10.1016/j.crad.2019.08.00431521327Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

12Partain 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-w 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 10.1245/s10434-020-08877-w32740738Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

13Park 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-w 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 10.1245/s10434-019-07226-w30877499Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

14Wang 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.13.11408 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 10.2214/AJR.13.1140825055285Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

15Miller 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/s10549-016-3700-8 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 10.1007/s10549-016-3700-826872902Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

16Mariscotti 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.20190785 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 10.1259/bjr.20190785721756932101449Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

17Sardanelli 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.2010.02.015 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 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.01520304629Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

18Joukainen 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.2021.07.027 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 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.07.02734412958Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

19Amer 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.2017.05.041 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 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.04128668424Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

20Chen 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.e36 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 10.4048/jbc.2018.21.e36615815430275861Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

21Laws 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/s10434-016-5401-2 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 10.1245/s10434-016-5401-227406094Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

22St 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.0000000000001897 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 10.1097/SLA.000000000000189727429028Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

23Versteegden 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/s10549-017-4475-2 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 10.1007/s10549-017-4475-228831674Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

24Mazouni 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.2006.04.017 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 10.1016/j.crad.2006.04.01716905388Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

25Britton 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.2010.02.012 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 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.01220303687Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

26Leung 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/hkjr1414265 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 10.12809/hkjr1414265Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

27Williams 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/ 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/Search in Google Scholar

28Butler-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.2014.01.002 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 10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.00224468464Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

29Mario 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.2019.03.005 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 10.1016/j.carj.2019.03.00531300313Open DOISearch in Google Scholar