Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Comparison with Conventional Mammography and Histopathology in 152 Women

  • Luczynska, Elzbieta (Department of Radiology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute) ;
  • Heinze-Paluchowska, Sylwia (Department of Radiology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute) ;
  • Dyczek, Sonia (Department of Radiology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute) ;
  • Blecharz, Pawel (Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute) ;
  • Rys, Janusz (Department of Tumour Pathology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute) ;
  • Reinfuss, Marian (Department of Radiotherapy, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute)
  • Received : 2014.01.31
  • Accepted : 2014.08.28
  • Published : 2014.12.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The goal of the study was to compare conventional mammography (MG) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in preoperative women. Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and all participants provided informed consent. The study included 152 consecutive patients with 173 breast lesions diagnosed on MG or CESM. All MG examinations and consults were conducted in one oncology centre. Non-ionic contrast agent, at a total dose of 1.5 mL/kg body weight, was injected intravenous. Subsequently, CESM exams were performed with a mammography device, allowing dual-energy acquisitions. The entire procedure was done within the oncology centre. Images from low and high energy exposures were processed together and the combination provided an "iodine" image which outlined contrast up-take in the breast. Results: MG detected 157 lesions in 150 patients, including 92 infiltrating cancers, 12 non-infiltrating cancers, and 53 benign lesions. CESM detected 149 lesions in 128 patients, including 101 infiltrating cancers, 13 non-infiltrating cancers, and 35 benign lesions. CESM sensitivity was 100% (vs. 91% for MG), specificity was 41% (vs. 15% for MG), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (vs. 0.67 for MG), and accuracy was 80% (vs. 65% for MG) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Both MG and CESM overestimated lesion sizes compared to histopathology (p < 0.001). Conclusion: CESM may provide higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection and greater diagnostic accuracy than conventional mammography.

Keywords

References

  1. Jochelson M. Advanced imaging techniques for the detection of breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2012:65-69
  2. Burhenne HJ, Burhenne LW, Goldberg F, Hislop TG, Worth AJ, Rebbeck PM, et al. Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:1067-1071; discussion 1072-1075 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.162.5.8165983
  3. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology 1993;187:75-79 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.187.1.8451440
  4. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
  5. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 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. Radiology 2002;225:165-175 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
  6. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376-383 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070200
  7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-1783 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911
  8. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2679-2683
  9. Smith A. Fundamentals of digital mammography: physics, technology and practical considerations. Radiol Manage 2003;25:18-24, 26-31; quiz 32-34
  10. Knopp MV, Giesel FL, Marcos H, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Choyke P. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:301-308 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002142-200108000-00006
  11. Padhani AR, Dzik-Jurasz A. Perfusion MR imaging of extracranial tumor angiogenesis. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:41-57 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002142-200402000-00005
  12. Jeswani T, Padhani AR. Imaging tumour angiogenesis. Cancer Imaging 2005;5:131-138 https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2005.0106
  13. Schäfer AO, Langer M. [MRI mammography screening in women with lobular carcinoma in situ]. Strahlenther Onkol 2012;188:716-717 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066-012-0138-8
  14. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 2013;266:743-751 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084
  15. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1225-1228 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801225
  16. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu MC, Rochard F, Opolon P, et al. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:W528-W537 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1944
  17. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM, Jong RA, Koomen M, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R94 https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3210
  18. Puong S, Bouchevreau X, Patoureaux F, Iordache R, Muller S. Dual-energy contrast enhanced digital mammography using a new approach for breast tissue canceling. Proc SPIE 2007;6510:65102H https://doi.org/10.1117/12.710133
  19. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, Fallenberg EM, Fischer T, Bick U, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2011;78:112-121 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.002
  20. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995;197:743-747 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480749
  21. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13-30 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.220.1.r01jl3113
  22. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540010035027
  23. Lewin JM, Niklason L. Advanced applications of digital mammography: tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Semin Roentgenol 2007;42:243-252 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2007.06.006

Cited by

  1. The Changing World of Breast Cancer: A Radiologist’s Perspective vol.50, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/rli.0000000000000166
  2. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria vol.25, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2
  3. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study vol.26, pp.12, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0
  4. The Changing World of Breast Cancer : A Radiologist's Perspective vol.36, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/psn.0000000000000128
  5. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer vol.23, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7
  6. Degree of Enhancement on Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Lesion Type on Mammography (MG): Comparison Based on Histological Results vol.22, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.900371
  7. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  8. Added Value of Contrast‐Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Postscreening Assessment vol.22, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12627
  9. Contrast enhanced dual energy spectral mammogram, an emerging addendum in breast imaging vol.89, pp.1067, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150609
  10. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography vol.208, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.16.16743
  11. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888
  12. Contrast‐enhanced Digital Mammography: A Single‐Institution Experience of the First 208 Cases vol.23, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12681
  13. Staging of breast cancer and the advanced applications of digital mammogram: what the physician needs to know? vol.90, pp.1071, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160717
  14. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging vol.19, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0899-1
  15. Workflow Considerations for Incorporation of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Into a Breast Imaging Practice vol.15, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.02.012
  16. Computer-aided diagnosis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: A feasibility study vol.98, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.024
  17. Attributes, Performance, and Gaps in Current & Emerging Breast Cancer Screening Technologies vol.15, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2174/1573405613666170825115032
  18. Classification of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images vol.14, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1876-6
  19. Fully Automated Support System for Diagnosis of Breast Cancer in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Images vol.8, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8060891
  20. Comparison of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis for lesion assessment vol.6, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jmi.6.3.031407
  21. Role of preoperative breast dual‐energy contrast‐enhanced digital mammography in ductal carcinoma in situ vol.25, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13408
  22. Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology-preliminary results vol.29, pp.11, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06232-6
  23. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review vol.10, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0
  24. BIRADS 4 breast lesions: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI vol.50, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-019-0043-6
  25. Correlation Between Enhancement Intensity in Contrast Enhancement Spectral Mammography and Types of Kinetic Curves in Magnetic Resonance Imaging vol.26, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.920742
  26. Retrospective Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography with Digital Mammography in Assessing Tumor Size in 668 Cases of Breast Cancer vol.26, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.926977
  27. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review vol.2, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz074
  28. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions vol.27, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.07.020
  29. The accuracy of titanium contrast-enhanced mammography: a retrospective multicentric study vol.61, pp.10, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185119900440
  30. Radiomics nomogram of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for prediction of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a multicenter study vol.30, pp.12, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07016-z
  31. The role of automated breast ultrasound in the assessment of the local extent of breast cancer vol.27, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.14132
  32. Radiomic and Artificial Intelligence Analysis with Textural Metrics, Morphological and Dynamic Perfusion Features Extracted by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Classificatio vol.11, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041880
  33. Kontrastmittelunterstützte Mammographie vol.61, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-021-00805-7
  34. 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 wit vol.94, pp.1118, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201046
  35. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature vol.9, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-021-00387-1
  36. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature vol.9, pp.11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-021-00387-1
  37. Breast cancer in dense breasts: comparative diagnostic merits of contrast-enhanced mammography and diffusion-weighted breast MRI vol.52, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-021-00442-z
  38. Does contrast-enhanced mammography have an impact on the detection of cancer in patients with risk of developing breast cancer? vol.52, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-021-00447-8