Literature DB >> 33787291

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

Molly P Hogan1, Tali Amir1, Varadan Sevilimedu2, Janice Sung1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Maxine S Jochelson1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to assess to the role of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as a screening tool in women at intermediate risk for developing breast cancer due to a personal history of lobular neoplasia without additional risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this institutional review board-approved, observational, retrospective study, we reviewed our radiology department database to identify patients with a personal history of breast biopsy yielding lobular neoplasia who underwent screening CEDM at our institution between December 2012 and February 2019. A total of 132 women who underwent 306 CEDM examinations were included. All CEDM examinations were interpreted by dedicated breast imaging radiologists in conjunction with a review of the patient's clinical history and available prior breast imaging. In statistical analysis, sensitivity, specificity, NPV, positive likelihood ratio, and accuracy of CEDM in detecting cancer were determined, with pathology or 12-month imaging follow-up serving as the reference standard. RESULTS. CEDM detected cancer in six patients and showed an overall sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 88% (95% CI, 84-92%), NPV of 100%, and accuracy of 88% (95% CI, 84-92%). The positive likelihood ratio of 8.33 suggested that CEDM findings are 8.3 times more likely to be positive in an individual with breast cancer when compared with an individual without the disease. CONCLUSION. CEDM shows promise as a breast cancer screening examination in patients with a personal history of lobular neoplasia. Continued investigation with a larger patient population is needed to determine the true sensitivity and positive predictive value of CEDM for these patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atypical lobular hyperplasia; contrast-enhanced digital mammography; lobular carcinoma in situ; lobular neoplasia; screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33787291      PMCID: PMC9219005          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.23480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   6.582


  26 in total

1.  Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia.

Authors:  Elisa Rush Port; Anna Park; Patrick I Borgen; Elizabeth Morris; Leslie L Montgomery
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-01-07       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Cancer statistics, 2019.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 3.  Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Atypical hyperplasia of the breast--risk assessment and management options.

Authors:  Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Richard J Santen; William D Dupont; Karthik Ghosh
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging.

Authors:  Glen Lo; Anabel M Scaranelo; Hana Aboras; Sandeep Ghai; Supriya Kulkarni; Rachel Fleming; Karina Bukhanov; Pavel Crystal
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Results of MR imaging screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with lobular carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Lauren C Friedlander; Susan Orel Roth; Sara C Gavenonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  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

Review 8.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Petra Macaskill; Sarah J Lord; Ruth M Warren; J Michael Dixon; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: A pilot study.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; Katja Pinker; D David Dershaw; Mary Hughes; Girard F Gibbons; Kareem Rahbar; Mark E Robson; Debra A Mangino; Debra Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Janice S Sung
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2017-10-07       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Valentina Iotti; Sara Ravaioli; Rita Vacondio; Chiara Coriani; Sabrina Caffarri; Roberto Sghedoni; Andrea Nitrosi; Moira Ragazzi; Elisa Gasparini; Cristina Masini; Giancarlo Bisagni; Giuseppe Falco; Guglielmo Ferrari; Luca Braglia; Alberto Del Prato; Ivana Malavolti; Vladimiro Ginocchi; Pierpaolo Pattacini
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.