Literature DB >> 31660801

Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

Jules H Sumkin1, Wendie A Berg1, Gloria J Carter1, Andriy I Bandos1, Denise M Chough1, Marie A Ganott1, Christiane M Hakim1, Amy E Kelly1, Margarita L Zuley1, Golbahar Houshmand1, Maria I Anello1, David Gur1.   

Abstract

Background Staging newly diagnosed breast cancer by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI is limited by access, high cost, and false-positive findings. The utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and 99mTc sestamibi-based molecular breast imaging (MBI) in this setting is largely unknown. Purpose To compare extent-of-disease assessments by using MRI, CEM, and MBI versus pathology in women with breast cancer. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant prospective study, women with biopsy-proven breast cancer underwent MRI, CEM, and MBI between October 2014 and April 2018. Eight radiologists independently interpreted each examination result prospectively and were blinded to interpretations of findings with the other modalities. Visibility of index malignancies, lesion size, and additional suspicious lesions (malignant or benign) were compared during pathology review. Accuracy of index lesion sizing and detection of additional lesions in women without neoadjuvant chemotherapy were compared. Results A total of 102 women were enrolled and 99 completed the study protocol (mean age, 51 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; range, 32-77 years). Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed in 71 women (79 index malignancies) without neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in 28 women (31 index malignancies) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 110 index malignancies, MRI, CEM, and MBI depicted 102 (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 97%), 100 (91%; 95% CI: 84%, 96%), and 101 (92%; 95% CI: 85%, 96%) malignancies, respectively. In patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic size of index malignancies was overestimated with all modalities (P = .02). MRI led to overestimation of 24% (17 of 72) of malignancies by more than 1.5 cm compared with 11% (eight of 70) with CEM and 15% (11 of 72) with MBI. MRI depicted more (P = .007) nonindex lesions, with sensitivity similar to that of CEM or MBI, resulting in lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies (13 of 46 [28%; 95% CI: 17%, 44%] for MRI; 14 of 27 [52%; 95% CI: 32%, 71%] for CEM; and 11 of 25 [44%; 95% CI: 24%, 65%] for MBI (overall P = .01). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, and MRI showed similar detection of all malignancies. MRI depicted more nonindex suspicious benign lesions than did contrast-enhanced mammography or molecular breast imaging, leading to lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies. All three modalities led to overestimation of index tumor size, particularly MRI. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31660801     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190887

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Identifying women with increased risk of breast cancer and implementing risk-reducing strategies and supplemental imaging.

Authors:  Suneela Vegunta; Asha A Bhatt; Sadia A Choudhery; Sandhya Pruthi; Aparna S Kaur
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 4.239

2.  Advances and Future Directions in Molecular Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Matthew F Covington; Ephraim E Parent; Elizabeth H Dibble; Gaiane M Rauch; Amy M Fowler
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 11.082

3.  Updates in Molecular Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 0.709

4.  Automatized Hepatic Tumor Volume Analysis of Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases by Gd-EOB MRI-A Deep-Learning Model to Support Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Decision-Making.

Authors:  Uli Fehrenbach; Siyi Xin; Alexander Hartenstein; Timo Alexander Auer; Franziska Dräger; Konrad Froböse; Henning Jann; Martina Mogl; Holger Amthauer; Dominik Geisel; Timm Denecke; Bertram Wiedenmann; Tobias Penzkofer
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 6.639

5.  Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)?

Authors:  Giulia Bicchierai; Francesco Amato; Bianca Vanzi; Diego De Benedetto; Cecilia Boeri; Ermanno Vanzi; Federica Di Naro; Simonetta Bianchi; Donatello Cirone; Diletta Cozzi; Vittorio Miele; Jacopo Nori
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Application of ultrasound molecular imaging based on compressed sensing reconstruction algorithm to phase change drug-loaded PLGA nanoparticles targeting breast cancer MCF-7 Cells.

Authors:  Yufeng You; Wusong Cheng; Hongbo Chen
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 1.088

7.  The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use.

Authors:  L M F H Neeter; H P J Raat; S D Meens-Koreman; R S A van Stiphout; S M E C Timmermans; K M Duvivier; M L Smidt; J E Wildberger; P J Nelemans; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Correlation of breast cancer microcirculation construction with tumor stem cells (CSCs) and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).

Authors:  Xiaoling Leng; Guofu Huang; Siyi Li; Miaomiao Yao; Jianbing Ding; Fucheng Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Prediction of Prognostic Factors and Genotypes in Patients With Breast Cancer Using Multiple Mathematical Models of MR Diffusion Imaging.

Authors:  Weiwei Wang; Xindong Zhang; Laimin Zhu; Yueqin Chen; Weiqiang Dou; Fan Zhao; Zhe Zhou; Zhanguo Sun
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.