Influencia de la incorporación de la tomosíntesis en un centro de diagnóstico mamario

Gustavo Febles; Cristina Balbiani; Graciela Vázquez

doi:10.29193/RMU.37.3.5

Authors

Gustavo Febles Hospital Británico, Unidad De Diagnóstico Mamario, Jefe. Médico Imagenólogo
Cristina Balbiani Hospital Británico, Unidad De Diagnóstico Mamario. Médico Imagenólogo
Graciela Vázquez Hospital Británico, Unidad De Diagnóstico Mamario. Médico Imagenólogo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29193/RMU.37.3.5

Keywords:

TOMOSYNTHESIS, MAMMOGRAPHY, DIAGNOSIS

Abstract

Introduction: significant technological progress has been made in the history of mammography. Recently, direct digital mammography plus tomosynthesis arrived and improved breast cancer screening.
Objective: to evaluate the effects of new technology in the performance of mammography, at the Breast Diagnostic Service of the British Hospital.
Method: mammography performance during 2019- 2020 was compared to that between 2010 and 2018.
In 2019 the previous tehcnology was substituted by a direct digital mammogram with tomosynthesis, Hologic, Selenia Dimensions model.
Results: 10.725 mammographies were done in 2019-2020. Cancer was detected in 84 cases and the cancer detection rate was 8 per 1000 persons. PPV was 35%. 45.438 mammographies were done in 2010-2018. Cancer was detected in 229 cases and the cancer detection rate was 5 per 1.000 persons. PPV was 40%. As to images, it is worth pointing out an increase in microcalcifications between 2019 and 2020, when they grew from 7% of cases to 19% of cases and distortions increased from 11% to 13%.
DCIS was 4 times greater in 2019-2020 when compare to the previous period of time (17% of all detected cases).
Conclusions: the integration of tomosynthesis increased 60% the cancer detection rate and the DCIS was 4 times greater.

References

1) Febles G. Revisión de los beneficios del screening del cáncer de mama y análisis de las controversias. Rev Imagenol 2015; 19(1):09-18.
2) Febles G, Estellano F, Simón O. Auditoría de los resultados de la mamografía diagnóstica en el Centro de Diagnóstico Mamario de la Asociación Española. Rev Méd Urug 2009; 25(1):5-13.
3) Chong A, Weinstein S, McDonald E, Conant E. Digital breast tomosynthesis: concepts and clinical practice. Radiology 2019; 292(1):1-14.
4) Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, Herschorn SD, Weaver DL, Onega T, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 156(1):109-16.
5) Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267(1): 47-56.
6) Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(7):583-9.
7) Caumo F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Romanucci G, Rella R, Cugola L, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the Verona screening program. Radiology 2018; 287(1):37-46.
8) Hofvind S, Hovda T, Holen AS, Lee CI, Albertsen J, Bjørndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2018; 287(3):787-94.
9) Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014; 311(24):2499-507.
10) 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):687-93.
11) Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, Iotti V, Ginocchi V, Ravaioli S, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology 2018; 288(2):375-85.
12) Giampietro RR, Gama MV, Molina SA, Weber SA, Dos Santos Nunes-Nogueira V. Accuracy and Effectiveness of Mammography versus Mammography and Tomosynthesis for Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1):7991. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64802-x.
13) 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):216-22.
14) Dibble EH, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Ward RC, Maynard AS, Mainiero MB. Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. Eur Radiol 2018; 28(1):3-10.