medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Mastología

ISSN 1870-2821 (Print)
Organo Oficial de la Asociación Mexicana de Mastología
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2019, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Mastol 2019; 9 (1)

Tomosynthesis detection of architectural distorsions hidden in conventional mammography

González CSI, Gracia QJF, Gascón MA, Lavín AR, Hernández BLD, Barrera LFA
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 5
Page: 10-12
PDF size: 204.87 Kb.


Key words:

Mammography, tomosynthesis, arquitectural distorsions.

ABSTRACT

Screening for breast cancer with conventional mammography (MG 2D) digital has known, well-documented limitations. The report false negatives screening in a range of 8-66% and depends on many factors, including: age, density, tumor type and misinterpretations of some mammographic findings. The architectural distortion (AD) is the third most common manifestation of non-palpable breast cancer and are often not visible in conventional mammography. A sample of cases, occur in asymptomatic patients attending screening study. Architectural distortions, detected in tomosynthesis (MG 3D), are documented. In the cases shown, AD in MG views, were not initially observed in conventional mammogram, or were only seen as asymmetry. In all patients complementary ultrasound they were performed to corroborate AD. The lesions showed a mean diameter of 10 mm (from 5-15 mm), with some findings associated as vascularity, acoustic shadow and echogenic halo. In patients in whom it was obtained histopathologic result showed that in cases where the AD was not presented in MG 2D, demonstrate carcinoma in situ. In cases of dense and heterogeneously dense breasts, where an asymmetry was presented in MG 2D, MG 3D showed DA, resulting in infiltrating carcinoma.


REFERENCES

  1. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014; 311 (24): 2499-2507. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095.

  2. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200 (6): 1401-1408. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9672.

  3. Partyka L, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB. Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203 (1): 216-222. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11047.

  4. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203 (3): 687-693. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12642. Epub 2014 Jun 11.

  5. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-041-SSA2-2011, Para la prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento, control y vigilancia epidemiológica del cáncer de mama.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Mastol. 2019;9