Literature DB >> 29070983

Application of BI-RADS Descriptors in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: Comparison with MRI.

Thomas Knogler1,2, Peter Homolka3, Mathias Hoernig4, Robert Leithner3, Georg Langs1,4, Martin Waitzbauer1,4, Katja Pinker1,2,5, Sabine Leitner1,2, Thomas H Helbich1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) BI-RADS descriptors are used in the evaluation of contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography (CEDEM) images of mass lesions and are assumed to be applicable. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with suspicious mass lesions on mammography (BI-RADS 4 or 5) were included. CEDEM examinations were performed using a modified prototype unit. CE-MRI was performed using a high temporal and high spatial resolution imaging protocol. 2 blinded breast radiologists evaluated all images using criteria related to contrast enhancement intensity and morphology according to the BI-RADS lexicon (5th edition) in 2 sessions. Histopathology was used as the standard of reference.
RESULTS: 11 patients with 5 benign and 6 malignant index lesions were included. Enhancement characteristics were similar in the malignant cases. Enhancement of the benign lesions was moderate on CEDEM and strong on MRI. Discrepancies in the BI-RADS descriptors did not influence the final BI-RADS score. Overall, the BI-RADS assessment was almost identical in all cases. 1 malignant lesion was rated BI-RADS 4 with CEDEM and BI-RADS 5 with MRI, and 1 benign was rated BI-RADS 2 and BI-RADS 1, respectively.
CONCLUSION: MRI BI-RADS descriptors of contrast-enhancing lesions can be applied for the morphologic analysis of mass lesions on CEDEM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Contrast agent; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography

Year:  2017        PMID: 29070983      PMCID: PMC5649262          DOI: 10.1159/000478899

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)        ISSN: 1661-3791            Impact factor:   2.860


  25 in total

1.  What is the evidence that tumors are angiogenesis dependent?

Authors:  J Folkman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1990-01-03       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.

Authors:  Eva M Fallenberg; Florian F Schmitzberger; Heba Amer; Barbara Ingold-Heppner; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Florian Engelken; Ritse M Mann; Diane M Renz; Ulrich Bick; Bernd Hamm; Clarisse Dromain
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Pathogenesis of tumor stroma generation: a critical role for leaky blood vessels and fibrin deposition.

Authors:  J A Nagy; L F Brown; D R Senger; N Lanir; L Van de Water; A M Dvorak; H F Dvorak
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  1989-02

4.  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

5.  Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

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

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.  Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis--Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI.

Authors:  Chen-Pin Chou; John M Lewin; Chia-Ling Chiang; Bao-Hui Hung; Tsung-Lung Yang; Jer-Shyung Huang; Jia-Bin Liao; Huay-Ben Pan
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging.

Authors:  Mary C Mahoney; Constantine Gatsonis; Lucy Hanna; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures.

Authors:  Matthew Wallis; Anne Tardivon; Anne Tarvidon; Thomas Helbich; Ingrid Schreer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 7.034

10.  Degree of Enhancement on Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Lesion Type on Mammography (MG): Comparison Based on Histological Results.

Authors:  Elżbieta Łuczyńska; Joanna Niemiec; Edward Hendrick; Sylwia Heinze; Janusz Jaszczyński; Jerzy Jakubowicz; Beata Sas-Korczyńska; Janusz Rys
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-10-21
View more
  9 in total

1.  Classification of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images.

Authors:  Shaked Perek; Nahum Kiryati; Gali Zimmerman-Moreno; Miri Sklair-Levy; Eli Konen; Arnaldo Mayer
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  The emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-12

3.  Incorporating the clinical and radiomics features of contrast-enhanced mammography to classify breast lesions: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Simin Wang; Yuqi Sun; Ning Mao; Shaofeng Duan; Qin Li; Ruimin Li; Tingting Jiang; Zhongyi Wang; Haizhu Xie; Yajia Gu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-10

4.  Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technical feasibility and first outcomes.

Authors:  R Alcantara; V Iotti; M Posso; M Pitarch; N Arenas; B Ejarque; G Besutti
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 7.034

5.  Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Screening Multifocal and Multicentric Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Lei Feng; Lei Sheng; Litao Zhang; Na Li; Yuanzhong Xie
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 3.009

Review 6.  Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fabrizia Gelardi; Elisa Maria Ragaini; Martina Sollini; Daniela Bernardi; Arturo Chiti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-04

Review 7.  BI-RADS 3: Current and Future Use of Probably Benign.

Authors:  Karen A Lee; Nishi Talati; Rebecca Oudsema; Sharon Steinberger; Laurie R Margolies
Journal:  Curr Radiol Rep       Date:  2018-01-27

8.  Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Pascal A T Baltzer; Panagiotis Kapetas; Mathias Hoernig; Michael Weber; Federica Leone; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Differences in degree of lesion enhancement on CEM between ILC and IDC.

Authors:  Thiemo Ja van Nijnatten; Maxine S Jochelson; Katja Pinker; Delia M Keating; Janice S Sung; Monica Morrow; Marjolein L Smidt; Marc Bi Lobbes
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-03-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.