Literature DB >> 27610475

Contrast enhanced dual energy spectral mammogram, an emerging addendum in breast imaging.

Kalpana D Kariyappa1, Francis Gnanaprakasam1, Subhapradha Anand1, Murali Krishnaswami1, Madan Ramachandran1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammogram (CEDM) as a problem-solving tool in equivocal cases.
METHODS: 44 consenting females with equivocal findings on full-field digital mammogram underwent CEDM. All the images were interpreted by two radiologists independently. Confidence of presence was plotted on a three-point Likert scale and probability of cancer was assigned on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scoring. Histopathology was taken as the gold standard. Statistical analyses of all variables were performed.
RESULTS: 44 breast lesions were included in the study, among which 77.3% lesions were malignant or precancerous and 22.7% lesions were benign or inconclusive. 20% of lesions were identified only on CEDM. True extent of the lesion was made out in 15.9% of cases, multifocality was established in 9.1% of cases and ductal extension was demonstrated in 6.8% of cases. Statistical significance for CEDM was p-value <0.05. Interobserver kappa value was 0.837.
CONCLUSION: CEDM has a useful role in identifying occult lesions in dense breasts and in triaging lesions. In a mammographically visible lesion, CEDM characterizes the lesion, affirms the finding and better demonstrates response to treatment. Hence, we conclude that CEDM is a useful complementary tool to standard mammogram. Advances in knowledge: CEDM can detect and demonstrate lesions even in dense breasts with the advantage of feasibility of stereotactic biopsy in the same setting. Hence, it has the potential to be a screening modality with need for further studies and validation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27610475      PMCID: PMC5124821          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150609

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  16 in total

1.  Development of contrast digital mammography.

Authors:  Mia Skarpathiotakis; Martin J Yaffe; Aili K Bloomquist; Dan Rico; Serge Muller; Andreas Rick; Fanny Jeunehomme
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Mammographic density and risk of second breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Angela M Capra; Ninah S Achacoso; Aradhana Janga; Luana Acton; Balaram Puligandla; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience.

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

Review 4.  Contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography: a promising new imaging tool in breast cancer detection.

Authors:  Ulrich Lalji; Marc Lobbes
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2014-05

5.  Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Yu-Ching Lin; Yung-Liang Wan; Kee-Min Yeow; Pei-Chin Huang; Yung-Feng Lo; Hsiu-Pei Tsai; Shir-Hwa Ueng; Chee-Jen Chang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Authors:  Mark A Francescone; Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Mary C Hughes; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 7.  Supplementary screening sonography in mammographically dense breast: pros and cons.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 8.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  Clarisse Dromain; Corinne Balleyguier; Ghazal Adler; Jean Remi Garbay; Suzette Delaloge
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.

Authors:  R E Bird; T W Wallace; B C Yankaskas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: comparison with conventional mammography and histopathology in 152 women.

Authors:  Elzbieta Luczyńska; Sylwia Heinze-Paluchowska; Sonia Dyczek; Pawel Blecharz; Janusz Rys; Marian Reinfuss
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2014-11-07       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.