Literature DB >> 23220903

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

Maxine S Jochelson1, D David Dershaw, Janice S Sung, Alexandra S Heerdt, Cynthia Thornton, Chaya S Moskowitz, Jessica Ferrara, Elizabeth A Morris.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine feasibility of performing bilateral dual-energy (DE) contrast agent-enhanced (CE) digital mammography and to evaluate its performance compared with conventional digital mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in women with known breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was obtained. Patient accrual began in March 2010 and ended in August 2011. Mean patient age was 49.6 years (range, 25-74 years). Feasibility was evaluated in 10 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were injected with 1.5 mL per kilogram of body weight of iohexol and imaged between 2.5 and 10 minutes after injection. Once feasibility was confirmed, 52 women with newly diagnosed cancer who had undergone breast MR imaging gave consent to undergo DE CE digital mammography. Positive findings were confirmed with pathologic findings.
RESULTS: Feasibility was confirmed with no adverse events. Visualization of tumor enhancement was independent of timing after contrast agent injection for up to 10 minutes. MR imaging and DE CE digital mammography both depicted 50 (96%) of 52 index tumors; conventional mammography depicted 42 (81%). Lesions depicted by using DE CE digital mammography ranged from 4 to 67 mm in size (median, 17 mm). DE CE digital mammography depicted 14 (56%) of 25 additional ipsilateral cancers compared with 22 (88%) of 25 for MR imaging. There were two false-positive findings with DE CE digital mammography and 13 false-positive findings with MR imaging. There was one contralateral cancer, which was not evident with either modality.
CONCLUSION: Bilateral DE CE digital mammography was feasible and easily accomplished. It was used to detect known primary tumors at a rate comparable to that of MR imaging and higher than that of conventional digital mammography. DE CE digital mammography had a lower sensitivity for detecting additional ipsilateral cancers than did MR imaging, but the specificity was higher. © RSNA, 2012.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23220903      PMCID: PMC5673037          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  27 in total

Review 1.  Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Role of science in the treatment of breast cancer when tumor multicentricity is present.

Authors:  Bernard Fisher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-07-15       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).

Authors:  M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 21-27       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Peter J Mazzone; Abraham H Dachman
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  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

7.  Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status.

Authors:  Richard J Bleicher; Robin M Ciocca; Brian L Egleston; Linda Sesa; Kathryn Evers; Elin R Sigurdson; Monica Morrow
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Authors:  Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

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.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  84 in total

1.  Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Thomas Knogler; Peter Homolka; Mathias Hörnig; Robert Leithner; Georg Langs; Martin Waitzbauer; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Sabine Leitner; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Development of silica-encapsulated silver nanoparticles as contrast agents intended for dual-energy mammography.

Authors:  Roshan Karunamuni; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Ajlan Al-Zaki; Anatoliy V Popov; Edward J Delikatny; Andrew Tsourkas; David P Cormode; Andrew D A Maidment
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Current and future trends in photoacoustic breast imaging.

Authors:  Srirang Manohar; Maura Dantuma
Journal:  Photoacoustics       Date:  2019-06-30

5.  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

6.  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

7.  An all-in-one nanoparticle (AION) contrast agent for breast cancer screening with DEM-CT-MRI-NIRF imaging.

Authors:  Jessica C Hsu; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Peter Chhour; Renee Hastings; Brianna F Moon; Joel M Stein; Walter R T Witschey; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 7.790

Review 8.  Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.

Authors:  Phoebe E Freer; Priscilla J Slanetz; Jennifer S Haas; Nadine M Tung; Kevin S Hughes; Katrina Armstrong; A Alan Semine; Susan L Troyan; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  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

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.