Full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus cmos technology, specimen radiography system (SRS) and tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which system can optimise surgical therapy?
Schulz-Wendtland R, Dilbat G, Bani M, Fasching P, Heusinger K, Lux MP, Löhberg C, Brehm B, Hammon M, Saake M, Dankerl P, Jud S, Rauh C, Bayer CM, Beckmann M, Uder M, Meier-Meitinger M (2013)
Publication Type: Journal article
Publication year: 2013
Journal
Book Volume: 73
Pages Range: 422-427
Journal Issue: 5
Abstract
Aim: This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate whether it would be possible to reduce the rate of re-excisions using CMOS technology, a specimen radiography system (SRS) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared to a conventional full field digital mammography (FFDM) system. Material and Method: Between 12/2012 and 2/2013 50 patients were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 5). After histological verification, all patients underwent breast-conserving therapy with intraoperative imaging using 4 different systems and differing magnifications: 1. Inspiration™ (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 m pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm; 2. BioVision™ (Bioptics, Tucson, AZ, USA), CMOS technology, photodiode array, flat panel, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 50 m pixel pitch, 12 lp/mm; 3. the Trident™ specimen radiography system (SRS) (Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.05, resolution 70 m pixel pitch, 7.1 lp/mm; 4. tomosynthesis (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), amorphous selenium, tungsten source, focus 0.1 mm, resolution 85 m pixel pitch, 8 lp/mm, angular range 50 degrees, 25 projections, scan time > 20 s, geometry: uniform scanning, reconstruction: filtered back projection. The 600 radiographs were prospectively shown to 3 radiologists. Results: Of the 50 patients with histologically proven breast cancer (BI-RADS™ 6), 39 patients required no further surgical therapy (re-excision) after breast-conserving surgery. A retrospective analysis (n = 11) showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase of sensitivity with the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis compared to the Inspiration™ at a magnification of 1.0: 2.0 or 1.0: 1.0 (tomosynthesis) (2.6, 3.3 or 3.6 %), i.e. re-excision would not have been necessary in 2, 3 or 4 patients, respectively, compared to findings obtained with a standard magnification of 1.0: 1.0. Conclusion: The sensitivity of the BioVision™, the Trident™ and tomosynthesis was significantly (p < 0.05) higher and the rate of re-excisions was reduced compared to FFDM using a conventional detector at a magnification of 2.0 but without zooming. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York.
Authors with CRIS profile
Peter Fasching
Professur für Translationale Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe
Christian Löhberg
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Barbara Brehm
Institute of Radiology
Matthias Hammon
Professur für Plastische Chirurgie und Handchirurgie
Marc Saake
Medizinische Fakultät
Peter Dankerl
Medizinische Fakultät
Sebastian Jud
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Claudia Rauh
Medizinische Fakultät
Matthias Beckmann
Lehrstuhl für Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
Michael Uder
Lehrstuhl für Diagnostische Radiologie
Involved external institutions
Germany (DE)How to cite
APA:
Schulz-Wendtland, R., Dilbat, G., Bani, M., Fasching, P., Heusinger, K., Lux, M.P.,... Meier-Meitinger, M. (2013). Full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus cmos technology, specimen radiography system (SRS) and tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which system can optimise surgical therapy? Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 73(5), 422-427. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1328600
MLA:
Schulz-Wendtland, Rüdiger, et al. "Full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus cmos technology, specimen radiography system (SRS) and tomosynthesis (DBT) - Which system can optimise surgical therapy?" Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 73.5 (2013): 422-427.
BibTeX: Download