OBJECTIVES: To compare mammography (MG), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers using postoperative histology as the gold standard. METHODS: After ethical approval, 80 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent MG, CESM, and MRI examinations. CESM was reviewed by an independent experienced radiologist, and the maximum dimension of suspicious lesions was measured. For MG and MRI, routine clinical reports of breast specialists, with judgment based on the BI-RADS lexicon, were used. Results of each imaging technique were correlated to define the index cancer. Fifty-nine cases could be compared to postoperative histology for size estimation. RESULTS: Breast cancer was visible in 66/80 MG, 80/80 CESM, and 77/79 MRI examinations. Average lesion largest dimension was 27.31 mm (SD 22.18) in MG, 31.62 mm (SD 24.41) in CESM, and 27.72 mm (SD 21.51) in MRI versus 32.51 mm (SD 29.03) in postoperative histology. No significant difference was found between lesion size measurement on MRI and CESM compared with histopathology. CONCLUSION: Our initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI in breast cancer detection than MG and a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. KEY POINTS: • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is slowly being introduced into clinical practice. • Access to breast MRI is limited by availability and lack of reimbursement. • Initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI than conventional mammography. • CESM showed a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography offers promise, seemingly providing information comparable to MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To compare mammography (MG), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers using postoperative histology as the gold standard. METHODS: After ethical approval, 80 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent MG, CESM, and MRI examinations. CESM was reviewed by an independent experienced radiologist, and the maximum dimension of suspicious lesions was measured. For MG and MRI, routine clinical reports of breast specialists, with judgment based on the BI-RADS lexicon, were used. Results of each imaging technique were correlated to define the index cancer. Fifty-nine cases could be compared to postoperative histology for size estimation. RESULTS:Breast cancer was visible in 66/80 MG, 80/80 CESM, and 77/79 MRI examinations. Average lesion largest dimension was 27.31 mm (SD 22.18) in MG, 31.62 mm (SD 24.41) in CESM, and 27.72 mm (SD 21.51) in MRI versus 32.51 mm (SD 29.03) in postoperative histology. No significant difference was found between lesion size measurement on MRI and CESM compared with histopathology. CONCLUSION: Our initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI in breast cancer detection than MG and a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. KEY POINTS: • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is slowly being introduced into clinical practice. • Access to breast MRI is limited by availability and lack of reimbursement. • Initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI than conventional mammography. • CESM showed a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography offers promise, seemingly providing information comparable to MRI.
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Katharina Heusinger; Christian R Loehberg; Evelyn Wenkel; Michael P Lux; Michael Schrauder; Thomas Koscheck; Werner Bautz; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Matthias W Beckmann; Mayada R Bani Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-10-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrea Teifke; Alexander Hlawatsch; Thomas Beier; Toni Werner Vomweg; Simin Schadmand; Markus Schmidt; Hans-Anton Lehr; Manfred Thelen Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R M Mann; C E Loo; T Wobbes; P Bult; J O Barentsz; K G A Gilhuijs; C Boetes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Felix Diekmann; Martin Freyer; Susanne Diekmann; Eva M Fallenberg; Thomas Fischer; Ulrich Bick; Alexander Pöllinger Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 3.528
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
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
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
Authors: Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Jessica C Hsu; Maryam Hajfathalian; Shaameen Mian; Peter Chhour; Lahari Uppuluri; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 7.790