Advertisement

Pathological outcome of sonographically occult architectural distortions (AD) visible only on digital breast tomosynthesis, and comparison with AD visible also on 2D mammography

Published:November 25, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110075

      Highlights

      • DBT-only AD are associated with significant risk of malignancy.
      • Absence of 2-D mammography and sonographic correlate does not exclude malignancy.
      • DBT-VAB is recommended in case of DBT-only AD.

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To evaluate the rates of malignant and of high-risk lesions among sonographically occult architectural distortions (AD) visible only on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and compare them with AD visible on 2D mammography (2D) and DBT.

      Method

      The records of 1104 DBT-vacuum assisted biopsies (DBT-VAB) were retrospectively reviewed and 218 cases of AD were identified. Complete radiologic examinations and pathologic results were available for 113 sonographically occult AD (1 clinically-detected, 112 clinically-occult). 2D and DBT images were reviewed and AD were divided into a “DBT-detected” group (visible on only DBT) and a “2D-detected” group (visible both in 2D and DBT). The rates of malignant and of high-risk lesions in the “DBT-detected” AD group were calculated and compared to those of the “2D-detected” AD group.

      Results

      Thirty-five (31%) of 113 AD were assessed as “DBT-detected”, while 78 (69%) as “2D-detected”. DBT-VAB results were benign lesions in 63 (56%) AD, high-risk lesions in 32 (28%) AD and malignant lesions in 18 (16%) AD. Four (12.5%) high-risk lesions were upgraded to malignancy at surgery.
      Based on final pathology, the malignancy rate was significantly higher in the “DBT-detected” group than the “2D-detected” group (34% [12/35 cases] vs 13% [10/78]; p <0.05). The high-risk lesion rates were 32% (11/35 cases) in the “DBT-detected” group and 22% (17/78 cases) in the “2D-detected” group (p>0.05).

      Conclusions

      AD visible on only DBT proved to be malignant in about one third of cases, which exceeded the malignancy rate of AD visible on also 2D. A similar proportion of DBT-only AD was represented by high-risk lesions.

      Keywords

      Abbreviations:

      AD (Architectural distortion), DBT (Digital breast tomosynthesis), 2D2D (mammography), DBT-VAB (Digital breast tomosynthesis- vacuum assisted biopsy)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Andersson I.
        • Ikeda D.M.
        • Zackrisson S.
        • Ruschin M.
        • Svahn T.
        • Timberg P.
        • Tingberg A.
        Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings.
        Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: 2817-2825https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9
        • Partyka L.
        • Lourenco A.P.
        • Mainiero M.B.
        Detection of Mammographically Occult Architectural Distortion on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening: Initial Clinical Experience.
        AJR. 2014; 203: 216-222https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11047
        • Durand M.A.
        • Wang S.
        • Hooley R.J.
        • Raghu M.
        • Philpotts L.E.
        Tomosynthesis-detected Architectural Distortion: Management Algorithm with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation.
        Radiographics. 2016; 36: 311-321https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150093
        • D’Orsi C.J.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Mendelson E.B.
        • Morris E.A.
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS Mammography Atlas Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
        5th Edition. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology2013
        • Gaur S.
        • Dialani V.
        • Slanetz P.J.
        • Eisenberg R.L.
        Architectural Distortion of the Breast.
        AJR. 2013; 201: W662-W670https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10153
        • Bahl M.
        • Baker J.A.
        • Kinsey E.N.
        • Ghate S.V.
        Architectural Distortion on Mammography: Correlation With Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Malignancy.
        AJR. 2015; 205: 1339-1345https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14628
        • Bahl M.
        • Lamb L.R.
        • Lehman C.D.
        Pathologic outcomes of architectural distortion on digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: 1162-1167https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.17979
        • Freer P.E.
        • Niell B.
        • Rafferty E.A.
        Preoperative Tomosynthesis-guided Needle Localization of Mammographically and Sonographically Occult Breast Lesions.
        Radiology. 2015; 275: 377-383https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140515
        • Alshafeiy T.I.
        • Nguyen J.V.
        • Rochman C.M.
        • Nicholson B.T.
        • Patrie J.T.
        • Harvey J.A.
        Outcome of Architectural Distortion Detected Only at Breast Tomosynthesis versus 2D Mammography.
        Radiology. 2018; 288: 38-46https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171159
        • Patel B.K.
        • Covington M.
        • Pizzitola V.J.
        • Lorans R.
        • Giurescu M.
        • Eversman W.
        • Lewin J.
        Initial Experience of Tomosynthesis-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Biopsies of Tomosynthesis-Detected (2D Mammography and Ultrasound Occult) Architectural Distortions.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210: 1395-1400https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18802
        • Ray K.M.
        • Turner E.
        • Sickles E.A.
        • Joe B.N.
        Suspicious findings at digital breast tomosynthesis occult to conventional digital mammography: imaging features and pathology findings.
        Breast J. 2015; 21: 538-542https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.2015.21.issue-510.1111/tbj.12446
        • Ambinder E.B.
        • Plotkin A.
        • Euhus D.
        • Mullen L.A.
        • Oluyemi E.
        • Di Carlo P.
        • Philip M.
        • Panigrahi B.
        • Cimino-Mathews A.
        • Myers K.S.
        Tomosynthesis-Guided Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy of architectural distortion without a sonographic correlate: a retrospective review.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021; 217: 845-854https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24740
        • Vijayaraghavan G.R.
        • Newburg A.
        • Vedantham S.
        Positive Predictive Value of Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsies of Architectural Distortions Seen on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and without an Ultrasound Correlate.
        Journal of Clinical Imaging Science. 2019; : 9-53https://doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_134_2019
        • Choudhery S.
        • Johnson M.P.
        • Larson N.B.
        • Anderson T.
        Malignant Outcomes of Architectural Distortion on Tomosynthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021; 217: 295-303https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23935
        • Lewin A.A.
        • Mercado C.L.
        Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Lobular Neoplasia: Update and Easing of Guidelines.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214: 265-275https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21991
        • Cohen M.A.
        • Newell M.S.
        Radial Scars of the Breast Encountered at Core Biospy: Review of Histologic, Imaging, and Management Considerations.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: 1168-1177https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18156
        • Pujara A.C.
        • Hui J.
        • Wang L.C.
        Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management.
        Clinical Imaging (54). 2019; 54: 133-137https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.01.004
        • Taskin F.
        • Durum Y.
        • Soyder A.
        • Unsal A.
        Review and management of breast lesions detected with breast tomosynthesis but not visible on mammography and ultrasonography.
        Acta Radiol. 2017; 58: 1442-1447https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117710681
        • Patel B.K.
        • Naylor M.E.
        • Kosiorek H.E.
        • Lopez-Alvarez Y.M.
        • Miller A.M.
        • Pizzitola V.J.
        • Pockaj B.A.
        Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as an adjunct for tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion.
        Clin Imaging (46). 2017; 46: 44-52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.07.003