A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biologic Profiles of Invasive Breast Cancers Detected Only With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the features of invasive breast cancers detected solely by digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with those found using both DBT and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
  • Out of 261 breast cancer cases analyzed, 85.4% were identified by both techniques, while 9.2% were detected only by DBT, often in patients with dense breast tissue and smaller tumors.
  • The findings suggest that incorporating DBT alongside FFDM in screenings can enhance the detection of less aggressive breast cancer subtypes in women with dense breasts.

Article Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features of invasive breast cancers detected only with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), compared with those of cancers detected with both DBT and full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Materials And Methods: The medical records of 261 women (108 without and 153 with symptoms) with invasive breast cancers who underwent FFDM and DBT between April 2015 and June 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. To assess detectability, all DBT and FFDM images were reviewed independently by three radiologists blinded to clinicopathologic information. The reference standard was established by an unblinded consensus review of all images. Clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features were analyzed according to the detectability status.

Results: Of the 261 cancers, 223 (85.4%) were detected with both DBT and FFDM (both-detected group). Twenty-four cancers (9.2%) not detected with FFDM (DBT-only group) were classified by DBT as a mass (58.3%), architectural distortion (33.3%), or asymmetry (8.3%). The remaining 14 cancers (5.4%) were not detected with either DBT or FFDM (both-occult group). On multivariate analysis, a dense breast parenchyma (p = 0.007), small tumor size (≤ 2 cm; p = 0.027), and luminal A-like subtype (estrogen receptor positive or progesterone receptor positive or both, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and Ki-67 expression < 14%; p = 0.008) were significantly associated with the DBT-only group. For 108 screening-detected cancers, a dense breast parenchyma (p = 0.007) and luminal A-like subtype (p = 0.008) also maintained significance.

Conclusion: The addition of DBT to FFDM in screening would aid in the detection of less-aggressive subtypes of invasive breast cancers in women with dense breasts.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18195DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

invasive breast
16
breast cancers
16
dbt ffdm
16
cancers detected
12
detected dbt
12
cancers
9
breast
8
detected digital
8
digital breast
8
breast tomosynthesis
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!