Breast Cancer

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 706–711 | Cite as

Digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for detection of breast cancer in the intraoperative specimen during breast-conserving surgery

  • Misugi UranoEmail author
  • Norio Shiraki
  • Tatsuya Kawai
  • Taeko Goto
  • Yumi Endo
  • Nobuyasu Yoshimoto
  • Tatsuya Toyama
  • Yuta Shibamoto
Original Article



To compare the diagnostic ability of specimen radiography using digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for detecting breast cancer and evaluating its extension in the intraoperative specimen.


Sixty-five specimens from 65 women (median 62 years; range 34–86) obtained during breast-conserving surgery were prospectively investigated. Specimens underwent DM (25–40 kVp, 12–322 mA s) and DBT (25–34 kVp, 13–137 mA) in two orthogonal planes, anteroposterior (AP) and latero-lateral (LL). Images were interpreted by a radiologist to detect invasive lesions and their extensive intraductal components (EIC) or ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS); afterwards, they were compared with histopathological findings.


In AP views, 96 % of the invasive lesions were detected by both the methods. Of the EICs, 55 and 65 % were detected by DM and DBT, respectively (P = 0.61). Of the DICSs, 31 and 38 % were detected by DM and DBT, respectively (P > 0.99). In LL views, 71 and 13 % of the invasive lesions were detected by DBT and DM, respectively (P < 0.0001). Of the EICs, 42 and 10 % were detected by DBT and DM, respectively (P = 0.0078). Of the 13 DCISs, 42 and 8 % were detected by DBT and DM, respectively (P = 0.32). The whole lesion and contour could be delineated in 45 % by DBT and in 6.2 % by DM (P < 0.0001).


DBT could detect breast cancer more accurately than DM in LL views, indicating its potential to more precisely diagnose vertical invasion.


Breast cancer Breast-conserving surgery Tomosynthesis Specimen mammography Margin assessment 



The authors wish to thank radiology technologists at Nagoya City University Hospital for taking DM and DBT. No funding exists for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    McCormick JT, Keleher AJ, Tikhomirov VB, Budway RJ, Caushaj PF. Analysis of the use of specimen mammography in breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2004;188:433–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber WP, Engelberger S, Viehl CT, Zanetti-Dallenbach R, Kuster S, Dirnhofer S, et al. Accuracy of frozen section analysis versus specimen radiography during breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable lesions. World J Surg. 2008;32:2599–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bathla L, Harris A, Davey M, Sharma P, Silva E. High resolution intra-operative two-dimensional specimen mammography and its impact on second operation for re-excision of positive margins at final pathology after breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg. 2011;202:387–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR. 2010;195:172–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state of the art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1298–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Urano M, Shiraki N, Hara M, Toyama T, Shibamoto Y (2014) Multi-detector row CT-guided marking technique for breast-conserving therapy of early breast cancer: margin positivity and local control rates. Breast Cancer (ahead of print).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, De Vries J, Bart J, de Jong JS, van Dam GM. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2717–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fusco R, Petrillo A, Catalano O, Sansone M, Granata V, Filice S, et al. Procedures for location of non-palpable breast lesions: a systematic review for the radiologist. Breast Cancer. 2014;21:522–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haid A, Knauer M, Dunzinger S, Jasarevic Z, Köberle-Wührer R, Schuster A, et al. Intra-operative sonography: a valuable aid during breast conserving surgery for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3090–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yingbing W, Ebuoma Lilian, Saksena Mansi, Liu B, Specht M, Rafferty E, et al. Clinical evaluation of a mobile digital specimen radiography system for intraoperative specimen verification. AJR. 2014;203:457–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulz-Wendtland R, Dilbat G, Bani M, Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Lux MP, et al. Full field digital mammography (FFDM) versus CMOS technology, specimen radiography system (SRS) and tomosynthesis (DBT)—which system can optimise surgical therapy? Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73:422–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wallace AM, Daniel BL, Jeffrey SS, Birdwell RL, Nowels KW, Dirbas FM, et al. Rates of re-excision for breast cancer after magnetic resonance imaging-guided bracket wire localization. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:527–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahmed M, van Hemelrijck M, Douek M. Systematic review of radioguided versus wire-guided localization in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:241–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang R, Buckley JM, Fernandez L, Coopey S, Aftreth O, Michaelson J, et al. Micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT): a novel approach for intraoperative breast cancer specimen imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139:311–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uematsu T. The emerging role of breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2013;20:204–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Astengo D, Airaldi S, Calabrese M, Houssami N. Comparative estimation of percentage breast tissue density for digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138:311–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takamoto Y, Tsunoda H, Kikuchi M, Hayashi N, Honda S, Koyama T, et al. Role of breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer for Japanese women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:3037–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1074–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sechopoulos I, Suryanarayanan S, Vedantham S, D’Orsi C, Karellas A. Computation of the glandular radiation dose in digital tomosynthesis of the breast. Med Phys. 2007;34:221–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975;55:231–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyNagoya City University Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNagoya City West Medical CenterNagoyaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Oncology, Immunology and SurgeryNagoya City University Graduate School of Medical SciencesNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations