Literature DB >> 31886607

Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification.

Antonella Petrillo1, Roberta Fusco1, Paolo Vallone1, Salvatore Filice1, Vincenza Granata1, Teresa Petrosino1, Maria Rosaria Rubulotta1, Sergio Venanzio Setola1, Mauro Mattace Raso1, Francesca Maio2, Concetta Raiano1, Claudio Siani3, Maurizio Di Bonito4, Gerardo Botti5.   

Abstract

To compare diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography (CEDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and in combination compared to 2D digital mammography (MX) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in women with breast lesions. We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with breast lesions (BIRADS 3-5 at imaging or clinically suspicious). CEDM, DBT, and DCE-MRI 2D were acquired. Synthetized MX was obtained by DBT. A total of 134 lesions were investigated on 111 breasts of 100 enrolled patients: 53 were histopathologically proven as benign and 81 as malignant. Nonparametric statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were performed. Two-dimensional synthetized MX showed an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0.764 (sensitivity 65%, specificity 80%), while AUC was of 0.845 (sensitivity 80%, specificity 82%) for DBT, of 0.879 (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%) for CEDM, and of 0.892 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 84%) for CE-MRI. DCE-MRI determined an AUC of 0.934 (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%). Combined CEDM with DBT findings, we obtained an AUC of 0.890 (sensitivity 89%, specificity 74%). A difference statistically significant was observed only between DCE-MRI and CEDM (P = .03). DBT, CEDM, CEDM combined to tomosynthesis, and DCE-MRI had a high ability to identify multifocal and bilateral lesions with a detection rate of 77%, 85%, 91%, and 95% respectively, while 2D synthetized MX had a detection rate for multifocal lesions of 56%. DBT and CEDM have superior diagnostic accuracy of 2D synthetized MX to identify and classify breast lesions, and CEDM combined with DBT has better diagnostic performance compared with DBT alone. The best results in terms of diagnostic performance were obtained by DCE-MRI. Dynamic information obtained by time-intensity curve including entire phase of contrast agent uptake allows a better detection and classification of breast lesions.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CEDM; breast cancer; diagnostic accuracy; mammography; tomosynthesis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31886607     DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13739

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  10 in total

Review 1.  Radiomics in medical imaging: pitfalls and challenges in clinical management.

Authors:  Roberta Fusco; Vincenza Granata; Giulia Grazzini; Silvia Pradella; Alessandra Borgheresi; Alessandra Bruno; Pierpaolo Palumbo; Federico Bruno; Roberta Grassi; Andrea Giovagnoni; Roberto Grassi; Vittorio Miele; Antonio Barile
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.701

2.  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

3.  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

4.  An update on radiomics techniques in primary liver cancers.

Authors:  Vincenza Granata; Roberta Fusco; Sergio Venazio Setola; Igino Simonetti; Diletta Cozzi; Giulia Grazzini; Francesca Grassi; Andrea Belli; Vittorio Miele; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.965

5.  Not only lymphadenopathy: case of chest lymphangitis assessed with MRI after COVID 19 vaccine.

Authors:  Vincenza Granata; Roberta Fusco; Paolo Vallone; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Carmine Picone; Francesca Grassi; Renato Patrone; Andrea Belli; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 2.965

6.  Development of the prediction model based on clinical-imaging omics: molecular typing and sentinel lymph node metastasis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Xian Wang; Xueyang Wang; Yanjun Zhang; Dekang Zhang; Zhou Song; Qingyu Meng; Yunjian Li; Chunxi Wang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-07

Review 7.  How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Authors:  Federica Vasselli; Alessandra Fabi; Francesca Romana Ferranti; Maddalena Barba; Claudio Botti; Antonello Vidiri; Silvia Tommasin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.738

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.

Authors:  Rashmi Sudhir; Kamala Sannapareddy; Alekya Potlapalli; Pooja Boggaram Krishnamurthy; Suryakala Buddha; Veeraiah Koppula
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 9.  Diagnostic evaluation and ablation treatments assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincenza Granata; Roberta Grassi; Roberta Fusco; Andrea Belli; Carmen Cutolo; Silvia Pradella; Giulia Grazzini; Michelearcangelo La Porta; Maria Chiara Brunese; Federica De Muzio; Alessandro Ottaiano; Antonio Avallone; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 2.965

10.  Radiomics in hepatic metastasis by colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Vincenza Granata; Roberta Fusco; Maria Luisa Barretta; Carmine Picone; Antonio Avallone; Andrea Belli; Renato Patrone; Marilina Ferrante; Diletta Cozzi; Roberta Grassi; Roberto Grassi; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 2.965

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.