Literature DB >> 33255412

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Screening Women after Breast Conserving Surgery.

Jill Gluskin1, Carolina Rossi Saccarelli1,2, Daly Avendano1,3, Maria Adele Marino1,4, Almir G V Bitencourt1,5, Melissa Pilewskie6, Varadan Sevilimedu7, Janice S Sung1, Katja Pinker1, Maxine S Jochelson1.   

Abstract

To investigate the value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in screening breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery (BCS), this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution study included 971 CEM exams in 541 asymptomatic patients treated with BCS who underwent screening CEM between January 2013 and November 2018. Histopathology, or at least a one-year follow-up, was used as the standard of reference. Twenty-one of 541 patients (3.9%) were diagnosed with ipsi- or contralateral breast cancer: six (28.6%) cancers were seen with low-energy images (equivalent to FFDM), an additional nine (42.9%) cancers were detected only on iodine (contrast-enhanced) images, and six interval cancers were identified within 365 days of a negative screening CEM. Of the 10 ipsilateral cancers detected on CEM, four were detected on low-energy images (40%). Of the five contralateral cancers detected on CEM, two were detected on low-energy images (40%). Overall, the cancer detection rate (CDR) for CEM was 15.4/1000 (15/971), and the positive predictive value (PPV3) of the biopsies performed was 42.9% (15/35). For findings seen on low-energy images, with or without contrast, the CDR was 6.2/1000 (6/971), and the PPV3 of the biopsies performed was 37.5% (6/16). In the post-BCS screening setting, CEM has a higher CDR than FFDM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer recurrence; breast cancer screening; breast conservation; breast conserving surgery; contrast enhanced mammography

Year:  2020        PMID: 33255412      PMCID: PMC7760311          DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123495

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancers (Basel)        ISSN: 2072-6694            Impact factor:   6.639


  52 in total

1.  Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs.

Authors:  W Leisenring; T Alonzo; M S Pepe
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Adjuvant trastuzumab reduces locoregional recurrence in women who receive breast-conservation therapy for lymph node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Ana P Kiess; Heather L McArthur; Kathleen Mahoney; Sujata Patil; Patrick G Morris; Alice Ho; Clifford A Hudis; Beryl McCormick
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  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

4.  Comparison of Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging.

Authors:  Julie Sogani; Elizabeth A Morris; Jennifer B Kaplan; Donna D'Alessio; Debra Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-07-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  Clarisse Dromain; Corrine Balleyguier; Serge Muller; Marie-Christine Mathieu; France Rochard; Paule Opolon; Robert Sigal
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Mammography Screening.

Authors:  Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Astrid Hacker; Stefan Sedlacek
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Performance of Screening Breast MRI across Women with Different Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Indications.

Authors:  Dorothy A Sippo; Kristine S Burk; Sarah F Mercaldo; Geoffrey M Rutledge; Christine Edmonds; Zoe Guan; Kevin S Hughes; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  N Houssami; S Ciatto; F Martinelli; R Bonardi; S W Duffy
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Authors:  Mark A Francescone; Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Mary C Hughes; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli; Francesca Caumo
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 6.639

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.