Literature DB >> 35220511

Impact of background parenchymal enhancement levels on the diagnosis of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in evaluations of breast cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced breast MRI.

Sachiko Yuen1,2, Shuichi Monzawa3, Ayako Gose4,5, Seiji Yanai4,5, Yoshihiro Yata4,5, Hajime Matsumoto4,5, You Ichinose4, Takashi Tashiro6, Kazuhiko Yamagami4,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and breast MRI in evaluations of breast cancer, with a focus on the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) levels.
METHODS: The present study included women who underwent CEDM and breast MRI to evaluate the disease extent of breast cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. Readers judged BPE levels (minimal-mild or moderate-marked) on CEDM, and were asked to assign findings suggesting malignancy using the following criteria: (1) enhancement other than BPE and (2) BI-RADS 4/5 calcifications without enhancement. On MRI, BI-RADS 3 and BI-RADS 4/5 lesions were evaluated as benign and malignant, respectively. The diagnostic performances of CEDM and MRI were compared separately between women with minimal-mild BPE and those with moderate-marked BPE.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients comprising 43 postmenopausal and 26 premenopausal women were included in the present study. In total, 195 lesions (94 malignant and 101 benign) were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of CEDM for the diagnosis of all lesions were 90.8 and 91.5% with minimal-mild BPE and 79.3 and 76.2% with moderate-marked BPE, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 90.0% and 71.0% with minimal-mild BPE and 87.5% and 78.1% with moderate-marked BPE, respectively. The accuracy of CEDM was significantly superior to that of MRI in women with minimal-mild BPE on both CEDM and MRI (p = 0.002). Regarding the negative impact of a correct diagnosis on CEDM, the odds ratio of "moderate-marked BPE" was 0.382.
CONCLUSION: In patients with minimal-mild BPE, the diagnostic performance of CEDM was superior to that of MRI.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; Cancer; Contrast agent-intravenous; MRI; Mammography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35220511     DOI: 10.1007/s12282-022-01345-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer        ISSN: 1340-6868            Impact factor:   4.239


  21 in total

1.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.

Authors:  Clarisse Dromain; Fabienne Thibault; Serge Muller; Françoise Rimareix; Suzette Delaloge; Anne Tardivon; Corinne Balleyguier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Yu-Ching Lin; Yung-Liang Wan; Kee-Min Yeow; Pei-Chin Huang; Yung-Feng Lo; Hsiu-Pei Tsai; Shir-Hwa Ueng; Chee-Jen Chang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.

Authors:  Eva M Fallenberg; Florian F Schmitzberger; Heba Amer; Barbara Ingold-Heppner; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Florian Engelken; Ritse M Mann; Diane M Renz; Ulrich Bick; Bernd Hamm; Clarisse Dromain
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease.

Authors:  Stephanie A Lee-Felker; Leena Tekchandani; Mariam Thomas; Esha Gupta; Denise Andrews-Tang; Antoinette Roth; James Sayre; Guita Rahbar
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 11.105

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.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Pamela K Isaacs; Virginia Vance; Fred J Larke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-07-29       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Miki Mori; Sadako Akashi-Tanaka; Satoko Suzuki; Murasaki Ikeda Daniels; Chie Watanabe; Masanori Hirose; Seigo Nakamura
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 4.239

8.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Women With Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk and Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Vera Sorin; Yael Yagil; Ady Yosepovich; Anat Shalmon; Michael Gotlieb; Osnat Halshtok Neiman; Miri Sklair-Levy
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wanqing Xiang; Haiying Rao; Liyu Zhou
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Clinical performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in pre-surgical evaluation of breast malignant lesions in dense breasts: a single center study.

Authors:  Anna Bozzini; Luca Nicosia; Giancarlo Pruneri; Patrick Maisonneuve; Lorenza Meneghetti; Giuseppe Renne; Andrea Vingiani; Enrico Cassano; Mauro Giuseppe Mastropasqua
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.