A total of 67 malignant lesions were found at the histopathological analysis of the specimens.
Of these lesions 32 were Invasive Ductal Carcinomas (IDCs),
5 Ductal Carcinomas In Situ (DCISs),
15 Ductal Carcinomas In Situ + Invasive Ductal Carcinomas (DCISs+IDCs),
9 Invasive Lobular Carcinomas (ILCs),
2 Lobular Carcinomas In Situ + Invasive Lobular Carcinomas (LCISs+LDCs) and 4 rare histotypes (TAB 1).
Regarding rare histotypes 2 were Mucinous Carcinomas,
one was a Papillary Invasive Carcinoma and one was a Apocrine Breast Carcinoma ( Table 1).
Table 1: Lesions found at the histopathological analysis of the specimens. All the lesions found at the analysis of all 7 quadrantectomy were unifocal. Mutlifocal disease were found at histology in the 44 mastectomies analysed, for a total of 60 lesions (*).
16 additional lesions were found at histology.
In particular 5 patients showed 1 IDC + 1 IDC+DCIS, 1 patient showed 3 IDCs,
4 patients showed 2 IDCs,
1 patient showed 1 papillary ca.
+ 1 DCIS,
1 patient showed 3 ILC and 2 patient showed 2 ILC.
DBT and DM correctly recognized 47 suspicious lesions.
Concerning their appearance,
both of them recognized 21 lesions as masses,
8 as microcalcifications and 18 as mixed ones.
( Table 2 Table 3).
Table 2: Lesions correctly found with both DBT and DM. DBT and DM recognized 47 suspicious lesions. Twenty-one appared as masses , 8 as microcalcifications and 18 as mixed lesions.
Table 3: Malignantl esions correctly recognized with DBT and DM. As you can see DBT and DM correclty found 47 lesions. DM detected 5 lesions not seen with DBT and DBT correctly reconized 11 lesione missed by DM. Both DM and DBT missed 4 lesions.
DBT showed 11 lesions,
not seen with DM .
They were 11 masses that at the histological analysis corresponded to 7 IDCs,
2 ILCs and 1 ILC+LCIS.
The range largest diameter of these lesion was 7-32 mm,
with a mean of 16.8 mm ( Fig. 3 ).
DM correctly showed 5 malignant lesion,
not seen with DBT.
They were 1 mass,
corresponding to 1 IDC at histology and 4 mixed lesions,
corresponding to 3 DCISs and 1 DIC+DCIS at histology.
The range of the largest diameter of these lesion was 12-40 mm,
with a mean of 21.5 mm.
Lesions missed by DBT were a total of 9; 5 of them were those correctly recognized by DM and 4 were missed by both techniques.
DM did not recognized a total of 15 lesions; 11 of them were those showed only by DBT and 4 were those recognized only by histopathological analysis.
Concerning the 4 lesions recognized only by histology,
they were 2 IDCs,
1 DCIS and 1 IDC+DCIS.
The range of the largest diameter of these lesion was 8-40 mm,
with a mean of 16.2 mm.
DBT correctly recognized a total of 58 malignant lesions with a DY of 86.6% (95%C.I.
DM showed 52 with a DY of 77.6% (95%C.I.
66.3-85.9) smaller than the one of DBT.
The lesions recognized only with DBT were 5 masses and 1 mixed lesion.
For the 47 cancer seen with both technique,
scores for lesion detectability were significantly higher (p=0.011) for DBT compared to DM.
In particular the mean detectability score for DBT and DM was 4.55±0.68 and 4.25±0.90,
respectively ( Fig. 4 Fig. 5 ).
Concerning the visibility of lesion margins,
the margins of lesions were fully visible in 38/39 (97.4%) cases with DBT,
while in 24/39 (61.5%) with DM.
The agreement in margin definition was low (k=0.08),
with DBT the margins were judged as fully visible in a greater number of cases ( Fig. 5 ).