Search

Objective Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become widely available, and a few cases of its use in clinical practice have been described. The aim of this study was to explore facilities for the semi-automated delineation of breast cancer tumors and to assess the feasibility of 3D printing of breast cancer tumors. Methods In a case series of five patients, different 3D imaging methods—magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and 3D ultrasound—were used to capture 3D data for breast cancer tumors. The volumes of the breast tumors were calculated to assess the comparability of the breast tumor models, and the MRI information was used to render models on a commercially available 3D printer to materialize the tumors. Results The tumor volumes calculated from the different 3D methods appeared to be comparable. Tumor models with volumes between 325 mm3 and 7,770 mm3 were printed and compared with the models rendered from MRI. The materialization of the tumors reflected the computer models of them. Conclusion 3D printing (rapid prototyping) appears to be feasible. Scenarios for the clinical use of the technology might include presenting the model to the surgeon to provide a better understanding of the tumor's spatial characteristics in the breast, in order to improve decision-making in relation to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgical approaches. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:238–242. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Although mammography screening programs do not include ultrasound examinations, some diagnostic units do provide women with both mammography and ultrasonography. This article is concerned with estimating the risk of a breast cancer patient diagnosed in a hospital-based mammography unit having a tumor that is visible on ultrasound but not on mammography. A total of 1,399 women with invasive breast cancer from a hospital-based diagnostic mammography unit were included in this retrospective study. For inclusion, mammograms from the time of the primary diagnosis had to be available for computer-assisted assessment of percentage mammographic density (PMD), as well as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) assessment of mammography. In addition, ultrasound findings were available for the complete cohort as part of routine diagnostic procedures, regardless of any patient or imaging characteristics. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of mammography failure, defined as BIRADS assessment 1 or 2. The probability that the visibility of a tumor might be masked at diagnosis was estimated using a regression model with the identified predictors. Tumors were only visible on ultrasound in 107 cases (7.6%). PMD was the strongest predictor for mammography failure, but age, body mass index and previous breast surgery also influenced the risk, independently of the PMD. Risk probabilities ranged from 1% for a defined low-risk group up to 40% for a high-risk group. These findings might help identify women who should be offered ultrasound examinations in addition to mammography.

BACKGROUND Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) can replace surgical biopsy for the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. The authors evaluated the accuracy and clinical utility of VAB in a multicenter setting using a strict quality assurance protocol. METHODS In the current study, VABs were performed successfully for 2874 patients at 5 sites. Benign lesions were verified by follow-up. Surgery was recommended for malignant and borderline lesions. VAB was performed on patients with lesions rated as highly suspicious (6%), intermediate to suspicious (85%), or probably benign (9%). Fifty-eight percent of the lesions were < 10 mm and 70% had microcalcifications. RESULTS The authors identified 7% of patients with invasive carcinomas, 15% with ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS), 5% with atypical ductal hyperplasias (ADH), and 0.6% with lobular carcinomas in situ. The results of the VAB necessitated an upgrade of 24% of patients with ADH to DCIS or DCIS and invasive carcinoma. Twelve percent of patients with DCIS proved to have invasive carcinoma. Seventy-three percent of the patients had benign lesions. Only 1 false-negative result was encountered (negative predictive value, 99.95%). Minor side effects were reported to occur in 1.4% of patients and 0.1% of patients required a subsequent intervention. Scarring relevant for mammography was rare among patients (i.e., 0.3% of patients had relevant scarring). CONCLUSIONS Quality-assured VAB was found to be highly reliable. VAB effectively identified patients with benign lesions and assisted therapeutic decisions. Most important, only a single case of malignancy was missed. A close interdisciplinary approach assured optimal results. Cancer 2004;100:245–51. © 2003 American Cancer Society.