Table 1.
P1 | Fig. | Lesion type | Lesion size2 (mm) | PA | PA | PA size (mm) | Co-localization x-ray/MRI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nr. | lesion appearance | contrast | |||||
32 | IDC | 12 | Mass | 2.6 | 16 | Good | |
35 | 4a-c | IDC | 26 | Mass | 2.7 | 18 | Good |
36 | IDC (3×) | 6, 6, 20 | Mass (3×) | 4.2, 3.1, 3.3 | 8, 8, 11 | Good | |
37 | IDC | 28 | Ring | 2.2 | 31 | Good | |
38 | IDC | 19 | Mass | 5.1 | 19 | Good | |
39 | IDC | 63 | Non-mass | 3.6 | 41 | Reasonable | |
40 | ILC | un | Non-mass | 3.7 | 45 | Poor3 | |
42 | IDC | un | Mass | 3.9 | 28 | Good | |
43 | IDC | 15 | Mass | 2.9 | 16 | Good | |
44 | IDC | 25 | Mass | 3.7 | 38 | Not defined | |
45 | Adenotype | un | Non-mass | 3.2 | 61 | Reasonable3 | |
47 | 4d-f | IDC | 24 | Ring | 5.5 | 24 | Good |
494 | LCIS | 40 | Non-mass | 3.9 | 54 | Good | |
52 | IDC | un | Non-mass | 2.7 | 53 | Good | |
53 | IDC | un | Ring | 3.3 | 46 | Good | |
54 | IDC | 22 | Mass | 6.4 | 18 | Reasonable5 | |
55 | IDC | 34 | Mass | 2.8 | 29 | Good | |
56 | IDC | 22 | Mass | 3.4 | 11 | Reasonable-Poor5 | |
58 | 4j-l | ILC | 22 | Mass | 2.3 | 19 | Good |
59 | IDC | 28 | Non-mass | 3.5 | 29 | Reasonable | |
60 | ILC | 22 | Not visible | 1.06 | 0 | n.a. | |
61 | IDC | un | Mass, atypical | 4.3 | 21 | Good | |
62 | IDC | 18 | Mass | 2.6 | 15 | Good | |
63 | IDC | un | Mass | 7.0 | 13 | Poor5 | |
65 | IDC | 18 | Mass | 2.6 | 13 | Good | |
66 | 4g-i | MC | 15 | Mass | 4.0 | 15 | Good |
67 | IDC | 13 | Mass | 5.3 | 16 | Good | |
68 | IDC | 14 | Mass | 2.9 | 10 | Good | |
70 | IDC | 19 | Mass | 3.0 | 23 | Good | |
72 | IDC | un | Non-mass | 2.8 | 44 | Good | |
73 | IDC | 25 | Multifocal mass | 2.9 | 42 | Reasonable5 |
1Internal numbering system
2The size of the lesion is estimated from histopathology post-surgery. If patients did not undergo surgery in Medisch Spectrum Twente (MST), the size is indicated as ‘unknown’ (un)
3The size of the lesion and/or the high breast density made a comparison between PA and x-ray lesion localization difficult
4An adenotype metastasis was found in one of the lymph nodes; however, the post-mastectomy specimen only revealed LCIS in the breast. The metastasis proves that there should have been an invasive component
5For these patients, the non-perfect co-localization could be attributed to the significant breast tilting during the PA measurement;
6The lesions with a contrast of ‘1’ for PA mammography were not visible in the PA imaging volume
PA photoacoustic, P patient number, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, IDC infiltrating ductal carcinoma, ILC infiltrating lobular carcinoma, LCIS lobular carcinoma in situ, MC mucinous carcinoma, n.a. not applicable, un unknown