Vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy for isolated BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications: evaluation with histopathology and midterm follow-up results

Atasoy, Mehmet Mahir; Tasalı, Nuri; Çubuk, Rahmi; Narin, Burcu; Deveci, Uğur; Yener, Neşe; Çelìk, Levent

doi:10.5152/dir.2014.14139

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, most suspicious lesions appear histologically as benign, so histological diagnostics could have been obviated. [4][5][6] One persistent challenge in mammographic imaging is under-and overdiagnosis of breast cancer. 3,7,8 There has been an ongoing effort to increase sensitivity without decreasing specificity of breast imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination analysis of breast calcifications using x‐ray dark‐field radiography

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: X-ray dark-field radiography could enhance mammography by providing more information on imaged tissue and microcalcifications. The dark field signal is a measure of small angle scattering and can thus provide additional information on the imaged materials. This information can be useful for material distinction of calcifications and the diagnosis of breast cancer by classifying benign and malign association of these calcifications. Methods: For this study, institutional review board approval was obtained. We present the evaluation of images acquired with interferometric grating-based x-ray imaging of 323 microcalcifications (166 malign and 157 benign associated) in freshly dissected breast tissue and compare the results to the information extracted in follow-up pathological evaluation. The number of imaged calcifications is sufficiently higher than in similar previous studies. Fourteen calcification properties were extracted from the digital images and used as predictors in three different models common in discrimination analysis namely a simple threshold model, a naive Bayes model and a linear regression model, which classify the calcifications as associated with a benign or suspicious finding. Three of these fourteen predictors have been newly defined in this work and are independent from the tissue background surrounding the microcalcifications. Using these predictors no background correction is needed, as in previous works in this field. The new predictors are the length of the first and second principle component of the absorption and dark-field data, as well as the angle between the first principle component and the dark-field axis. We called these predictors data length, data width, and data orientation. Results: In fourfold cross-validation malignancy of the imaged tissue was predicted. Models that take only classical absorption predictors into account reached a sensitivity of 53.3% at a specificity of 81.1%. For a combination of predictors that also include dark field information, a sensitivity of 63.2% and specificity of 80.8% were obtained. The included dark field information consisted of the newly introduced parameters, data orientation and data width. Conclusions: While remaining at a similar specificity, the sensitivity, with which a trained model was able to distinguish malign from benign associated calcifications, was increased by 10% on including dark-field information. This suggests grating-based x-ray imaging as a promising clinical

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrimination analysis of breast calcifications using x‐ray dark‐field radiography

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kettritz found 22% DCIS or invasive cancer in a large multicentre study of VAB in 2874 patients, although not all his cases (70%) had calcification only. Atasoy found 15 malignancies in 66 cases of VABs (22.7%) but their cases were limited to suspicious calcification – BI‐RADS 4…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Full‐field digital mammography: Is the apparent increased detection of microcalcification leading to over‐investigation and over‐diagnosis?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because microcalcifications are not visible by US but are well visible by mammography, "microcalcification only on mammography" features are difficult to verify with the usual diagnostic tools. For several decades, the stereotactic biopsy method has been used to verify these suspicious microcalcifications (1). The stereotactic biopsy method is less invasive than excisional biopsy, induces minimal scarring, and has a short recovery time (11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pleomorphic or fine linear microcalcification has a high probability of malignancy, and clustered microcalcification may be an early sign of breast cancer (1,2). Such lesions are usually classified as more than category 4 using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification, which requires histologic confirmation (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-stereotactic method involving combination of ultrasound-guided wire localization and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for microcalcification

Lee

Park

Jung³

et al. 2016

Gland Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy for isolated BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications: evaluation with histopathology and midterm follow-up results

Cited by 19 publications

References 31 publications

Discrimination analysis of breast calcifications using x‐ray dark‐field radiography

Discrimination analysis of breast calcifications using x‐ray dark‐field radiography

Full‐field digital mammography: Is the apparent increased detection of microcalcification leading to over‐investigation and over‐diagnosis?

Non-stereotactic method involving combination of ultrasound-guided wire localization and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for microcalcification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About