Literature DB >> 34817195

Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.

Tali Amir1, Molly P Hogan1, Stefanie Jacobs1, Varadan Sevilimedu2, Janice Sung1, Maxine S Jochelson1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to outperform standard mammography while performing comparably to contrast-enhanced MRI. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare imaging characteristics of false-positive and true-positive findings on CEDM. METHODS. This retrospective study included women who underwent baseline screening CEDM between January 2013 and December 2018 assessed as BI-RADS category 0, 3, 4, or 5 and who underwent biopsy with histopathologic diagnosis or had a 2-year imaging follow-up. Lesion characteristics were extracted from CEDM reports. A true-positive finding was defined as a lesion in which biopsy yielded malignancy. A false-positive finding was defined as a lesion in which biopsy yielded benign or benign high-risk pathology or in which 2-year imaging follow-up was negative. RESULTS. Of 157 patients (median age, 52 years), 24 had a total of 26 true-positive lesions, and 133 had a total of 147 false-positive lesions. Of the 26 true-positive lesions, one (4%) exhibited only a mammographic finding on low-iodine images, 13 (50%) exhibited only a contrast finding on iodine images, and 12 (46%) exhibited both a mammographic finding on low-energy images and a contrast finding on iodine images. A true-positive result was more likely (p = .02) for lesions present on both low-energy images and iodine images (31%) than on low-energy images only (4%) or iodine images only (12%). Among lesions present on both low-energy and iodine images, a true-positive result was more likely (p < .001) when the type of mammographic finding was an asymmetry (46%) or calcification (80%) than a mass (11%) or distortion (0%). A true-positive result was more likely (p = .01) among those with, versus those without, an ultrasound correlate (36% vs 9%) and also was more likely (p = .02) among those with, versus those without, an MRI correlate (18% vs 2%). Of 25 false-positive calcifications, 24 had no associated mammographic enhancement; of five true-positive calcifications, four had mammographic enhancement. CONCLUSION. A low-energy mammographic finding with associated enhancement or a finding with a sonographic or MRI correlate predicts a true-positive result. Calcifications with associated enhancement had a high malignancy rate. Nonetheless, half of true-positive lesions enhanced on iodine images without a mammographic finding on low-energy images. CLINICAL IMPACT. These observations inform radiologists' management of abnormalities detected on screening CEDM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; breast screening; contrast-enhanced digital mammography; false-positive

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34817195      PMCID: PMC9110098          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.21.26847

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  38 in total

1.  Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Guide to Interpretation and Reporting.

Authors:  Hannah Perry; Jordana Phillips; Vandana Dialani; Priscilla J Slanetz; Valerie J Fein-Zachary; Evguenia J Karimova; Tejas S Mehta
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as an adjunct for tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion.

Authors:  Bhavika K Patel; Michelle E Naylor; Heidi E Kosiorek; Yania M Lopez-Alvarez; Adrian M Miller; Victor J Pizzitola; Barbara A Pockaj
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries.

Authors:  Hyuna Sung; Jacques Ferlay; Rebecca L Siegel; Mathieu Laversanne; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.

Authors:  E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  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

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

8.  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

9.  Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Laszlo Tabar; Anne Helene Olsen; Bedrich Vitak; Prue C Allgood; Tony H H Chen; Amy M F Yen; Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Utility of Targeted Ultrasound to Predict Malignancy Among Lesions Detected on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Kristen Coffey; Janice Sung; Christopher Comstock; Gulce Askin; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Donna D'Alessio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 6.582

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  A case report of breast cancer in silicone-injected breasts diagnosed by an emerging technique of contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Wen-Lin Kuo; Li-Yu Lee; Ya-Chun Tang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.738

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.