OBJECTIVE: To correlate image parameters in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) with blood and lymphatic microvessel density (MVD). METHODS: 18 Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-4 to BI-RADS-5 patients were subjected to CEDM. Craniocaudal views were acquired, two views (low and high energy) before iodine contrast medium (CM) injection and four views (high energy) 1-5 min afterwards. Processing included registration and two subtraction modalities, traditional single-energy temporal (high-energy) and "dual-energy temporal with a matrix", proposed to improve lesion conspicuity. Images were calibrated into iodine thickness, and iodine uptake, contrast, time-intensity and time-contrast kinetic curves were quantified. Image indicators were compared with MVD evaluated by anti-CD105 and anti-podoplanin (D2-40) immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: 11 lesions were cancerous and 7 were benign. CEDM subtraction strongly increased conspicuity of lesions enhanced by iodine uptake. A strong correlation was observed between lymphatic vessels and blood vessels; all benign lesions had <30 blood microvessels per field, and all cancers had more than this value. MVD showed no correlation with iodine uptake, nor with contrast. The most frequent curve was early uptake followed by plateau for uptake and contrast in benign and malignant lesions. The positive-predictive value of uptake dynamics was 73% and that of contrast was 64%. CONCLUSION: CEDM increased lesion visibility and showed additional features compared with conventional mammography. Lack of correlation between image parameters and MVD is probably due to tumour tissue heterogeneity, mammography projective nature and/or dependence of extracellular iodine irrigation on tissue composition. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative analysis of CEDM images was performed. Image parameters and MVD showed no correlation. Probably, this is indication of the complex dependence of CM perfusion on tumour microenvironment.
OBJECTIVE: To correlate image parameters in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) with blood and lymphatic microvessel density (MVD). METHODS: 18 Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-4 to BI-RADS-5 patients were subjected to CEDM. Craniocaudal views were acquired, two views (low and high energy) before iodine contrast medium (CM) injection and four views (high energy) 1-5 min afterwards. Processing included registration and two subtraction modalities, traditional single-energy temporal (high-energy) and "dual-energy temporal with a matrix", proposed to improve lesion conspicuity. Images were calibrated into iodine thickness, and iodine uptake, contrast, time-intensity and time-contrast kinetic curves were quantified. Image indicators were compared with MVD evaluated by anti-CD105 and anti-podoplanin (D2-40) immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: 11 lesions were cancerous and 7 were benign. CEDM subtraction strongly increased conspicuity of lesions enhanced by iodine uptake. A strong correlation was observed between lymphatic vessels and blood vessels; all benign lesions had <30 blood microvessels per field, and all cancers had more than this value. MVD showed no correlation with iodine uptake, nor with contrast. The most frequent curve was early uptake followed by plateau for uptake and contrast in benign and malignant lesions. The positive-predictive value of uptake dynamics was 73% and that of contrast was 64%. CONCLUSION: CEDM increased lesion visibility and showed additional features compared with conventional mammography. Lack of correlation between image parameters and MVD is probably due to tumour tissue heterogeneity, mammography projective nature and/or dependence of extracellular iodine irrigation on tissue composition. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Quantitative analysis of CEDM images was performed. Image parameters and MVD showed no correlation. Probably, this is indication of the complex dependence of CM perfusion on tumour microenvironment.
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sara C Chen; Ann-Katherine Carton; Michael Albert; Emily F Conant; Mitchell D Schnall; Andrew D A Maidment Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
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