Literature DB >> 20839001

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.

Clarisse Dromain1, Fabienne Thibault, Serge Muller, Françoise Rimareix, Suzette Delaloge, Anne Tardivon, Corinne Balleyguier.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated.
RESULTS: The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p < 0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively.
CONCLUSION: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20839001     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  20 in total

1.  Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography.

Authors:  X Wu; G T Barnes; D M Tucker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography: 1. Further confirmation with extended data.

Authors: 
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Contrast-enhanced CT: value for diagnosing local breast cancer recurrence after conservative treatment.

Authors:  C Hagay; P J Cherel; C E de Maulmont; M M Plantet; R Gilles; J L Floiras; J R Garbay; C M Pallud
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Computed tomographic mammography using a conventional body scanner.

Authors:  C H Chang; D E Nesbit; D R Fisher; S L Fritz; S J Dwyer; A W Templeton; F Lin; W R Jewell
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe; Mia Skarpathiotakis; Rene S Shumak; Nathalie M Danjoux; Anoma Gunesekara; Donald B Plewes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Authors:  R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy.

Authors:  S G Orel; M D Schnall; C M Powell; M G Hochman; L J Solin; B L Fowble; M H Torosian; E F Rosato
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  50 in total

1.  Optimization of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography depending on clinical indication.

Authors:  Clarisse Dromain; Sandra Canale; Sylvie Saab-Puong; Ann-Katherine Carton; Serge Muller; Eva Maria Fallenberg
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-12-30

2.  The effect of amorphous selenium detector thickness on dual-energy digital breast imaging.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Staging of breast cancer and the advanced applications of digital mammogram: what the physician needs to know?

Authors:  Maha H Helal; Sahar M Mansour; Mai Zaglol; Lamia A Salaleldin; Omniya M Nada; Marwa A Haggag
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Assessment of disease extent on contrast-enhanced MRI in breast cancer detected at digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone.

Authors:  A V Chudgar; E F Conant; S P Weinstein; B M Keller; M Synnestvedt; P Yamartino; E S McDonald
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 2.350

5.  Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Radiomics Analysis for Noninvasive Breast Cancer Characterization: Initial Results.

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Katja Pinker; Doris Leithner; Janice Sung; Daly Avendano; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine Jochelson
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  A modified undecimated discrete wavelet transform based approach to mammographic image denoising.

Authors:  Eri Matsuyama; Du-Yih Tsai; Yongbum Lee; Masaki Tsurumaki; Noriyuki Takahashi; Haruyuki Watanabe; Hsian-Min Chen
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.

Authors:  E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography based on photon-counting detectors: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Hsiu-Pei Tsai; Yung-Feng Lo; Shir-Hwa Ueng; Pei-Chin Huang; Shin-Chih Chen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.