Literature DB >> 31453765

Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

Janice S Sung1, Lizza Lebron1, Delia Keating1, Donna D'Alessio1, Christopher E Comstock1, Carol H Lee1, Malcolm C Pike1, Miranda Ayhan1, Chaya S Moskowitz1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Maxine S Jochelson1.   

Abstract

BackgroundContrast agent-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to be more sensitive and specific than two-dimensional full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting. Few studies have reported on its performance in the screening setting.PurposeTo evaluate the performance of CEDM for breast cancer screening.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study included women who underwent dual-energy CEDM for breast cancer screening from December 2012 through April 2016. Medical records were reviewed for age, risk factors, short-interval follow-up and biopsies recommended, and cancers detected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value of abnormal findings at screening (PPV1), positive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV3), and negative predictive value were determined.ResultsIn the study period 904 baseline CEDMs were performed. Mean age was 51.8 years ± 9.4 (standard deviation). Of 904 patients, 700 (77.4%) had dense breasts, 247 (27.3%) had a family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative age 50 years or younger, and 363 (40.2%) a personal history of breast cancer. The final Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score was 1 or 2 in 832 of 904 (92.0%) patients, score of 3 in 25 of 904 (2.8%) patients, and score of 4 or 5 in 47 of 904 (5.2%) patients. By using CEDM, 15 cancers were diagnosed in 14 of 904 women (cancer detection rate, 15.5 of 1000). PPV3 was 29.4% (15 of 51). At least 1-year follow up was available in 858 women. There were two interval cancers. Sensitivity was 50.0% (eight of 16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.7%, 75.3%) on the low-energy images compared with 87.5% (14 of 16; 95% CI: 61.7%, 98.4%) for the entire study (low-energy and iodine images; P = .03). Specificity was 93.7% (789 of 842; 95% CI: 91.8%, 95.2%); PPV1 was 20.9% (14 of 67; 95% CI: 11.9%, 32.6%), and negative predictive value was 99.7% (789 of 791; 95% CI: 99.09%, 99.97%).ConclusionContrast-enhanced digital mammography is a promising technique for screening women with higher-than-average risk for breast cancerRSNA, 2019.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31453765      PMCID: PMC6776233          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182660

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


  32 in total

1.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Claudia C Leutner; Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Eva Wardelmann; Rolf Fimmers; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-20       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  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

3.  Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Sharp F Malak; Punam Bajaj; Rebecca Alis; D David Dershaw; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  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

5.  Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Recommendations From the ACR.

Authors:  Debra L Monticciolo; Mary S Newell; Linda Moy; Bethany Niell; Barbara Monsees; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  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

7.  Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Anne-Renee Hartman; Bruce L Daniel; Allison W Kurian; Meredith A Mills; Kent W Nowels; Frederick M Dirbas; Kerry E Kingham; Nicki M Chun; Robert J Herfkens; James M Ford; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS?

Authors:  Tari A King; Shirin Muhsen; Sujata Patil; Starr Koslow; Sabine Oskar; Anna Park; Mary Morrogh; Rita A Sakr; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Women With Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk and Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Vera Sorin; Yael Yagil; Ady Yosepovich; Anat Shalmon; Michael Gotlieb; Osnat Halshtok Neiman; Miri Sklair-Levy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.

Authors:  U C Lalji; C R L P N Jeukens; I Houben; P J Nelemans; R E van Engen; E van Wylick; R G H Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; L E Paulis; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  A review of optical breast imaging: Multi-modality systems for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Steven Poplack
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Vera Sorin; Miri Sklair-Levy
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-11

3.  The emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography.

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

4.  Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Tali Amir; Molly P Hogan; Stefanie Jacobs; Varadan Sevilimedu; Janice Sung; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  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

Review 6.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Julie Sogani; Victoria L Mango; Delia Keating; Janice S Sung; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 1.605

Review 8.  Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; Marc B I Lobbes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Risk Management for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers without and with breast cancer.

Authors:  C B Mainor; C Isaacs
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2020-02-17

10.  Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia.

Authors:  Molly P Hogan; Tali Amir; Varadan Sevilimedu; Janice Sung; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 6.582

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.