Literature DB >> 33242249

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.

Rashmi Sudhir1, Kamala Sannapareddy1, Alekya Potlapalli1, Pooja Boggaram Krishnamurthy1, Suryakala Buddha1, Veeraiah Koppula1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer detection in comparison to synthetic two-dimensional mammography (s2D MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasound examination in females with dense breast with histopathology as the gold-standard.
METHODS: It was a prospective study, where consecutive females presenting to symptomatic breast clinic between April 2019 and June 2020 were evaluated with DBT. Females who were found to have heterogeneously dense (ACR type C) or extremely dense (ACR type D) breast composition detected on s2D MG were further evaluated with high-resolution breast ultrasound and thereafter with CEDM, but before the core biopsy or surgical excision, were included in the study. s2D MG was derived from post-processing reconstruction of DBT data set. Females with pregnancy, renal insufficiency or prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast agent were excluded from the study. Image interpretation was done by two experienced breast radiologists and both were blinded to histological diagnosis.
RESULTS: This study included 166 breast lesions in130 patients with mean age of 45 ± 12 years (age range 24-72 years). There were 87 (52.4%) malignant and 79 (47.6%) benign lesions. The sensitivity of CEDM was 96.5%, significantly higher than synthetic 2D MG (75.6%, p < 0.0001), DBT alone (82.8%, p < 0.0001) and DBT + ultrasound (88.5%, p = 0.0057); specificity of CEDM was 81%, significantly higher than s2D MG (63.3%, p = 0.0002) and comparable to DBT alone (84.4%, p = 0.3586) and DBT + ultrasound (79.7%, p = 0.4135). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was of 0.896 for CEDM, 0.841 for DBT + ultrasound, 0.769 for DBT alone and 0.729 for s2D MG.
CONCLUSION: CEDM is an accurate diagnostic technique for cancer detection in dense breast. CEDM allowed a significantly higher number of breast cancer detection than the s2D MG, DBT alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasonography in females with dense breast. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CEDM is a promising novel technology with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in females with dense breast in comparison to DBT alone or DBT supplemented with ultrasound.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33242249      PMCID: PMC7934319          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20201046

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


  23 in total

1.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Diana S M Buist; Sally D Herschorn; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Junqiang Lei; Pin Yang; Li Zhang; Yinzhong Wang; Kehu Yang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth H Dibble; Tisha M Singer; Nneka Jimoh; Grayson L Baird; Ana P Lourenco
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Added Value of Breast MRI for Preoperative Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Diagnostic Performance on 362 Patients.

Authors:  Antonella Petrillo; Roberta Fusco; Mario Petrillo; Flavia Triunfo; Salvatore Filice; Paolo Vallone; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Mariarosaria Rubulotta; Maurizio Di Bonito; Massimo Rinaldo; Massimiliano D'Aiuto; Arturo Brunetti
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-12-29       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  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

6.  Comparison of the Mammography, Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Ultrasonography in a Group of 116 patients.

Authors:  Elzbieta Luczyńska; Sylwia Heinze; Agnieszka Adamczyk; Janusz Rys; Jerzy W Mitus; Edward Hendrick
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.480

7.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  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.

Authors:  Antonella Petrillo; Roberta Fusco; Paolo Vallone; Salvatore Filice; Vincenza Granata; Teresa Petrosino; Maria Rosaria Rubulotta; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Mauro Mattace Raso; Francesca Maio; Concetta Raiano; Claudio Siani; Maurizio Di Bonito; Gerardo Botti
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Marc B I Lobbes; Ulrich Lalji; Janneke Houwers; Estelle C Nijssen; Patty J Nelemans; Lori van Roozendaal; Marjolein L Smidt; Esther Heuts; Joachim E Wildberger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Comparison to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Dong Xing; Yongbin Lv; Bolin Sun; Haizhu Xie; Jianjun Dong; Cuijuan Hao; Qianqian Chen; Xiaoxiao Chi
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 1.826

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Temitope Emmanuel Komolafe; Cheng Zhang; Oluwatosin Atinuke Olagbaju; Gang Yuan; Qiang Du; Ming Li; Jian Zheng; Xiaodong Yang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.847

2.  Comparative Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with and without Ultrasound versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Detecting Breast Lesion.

Authors:  Janice Hui Ling Goh; Toh Leong Tan; Suraya Aziz; Iqbal Hussain Rizuana
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 3.390

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.