Journal of Breast Cancer

Korean Breast Cancer Society (한국유방암학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

  • Kim, Eun Young (Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Youn, Inyoung (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kwan Ho (Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yun, Ji-Sup (Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Yong Lai (Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Chan Heun (Department of Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Juhee (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Seon Hyeong (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Choi, Yoon Jung (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ham, Soo-Youn (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kook, Shin Ho (Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2018.07.11
  • Accepted : 2018.11.27
  • Published : 2018.12.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) in preoperative evaluations, and to evaluate the effect of each modality on the surgical management of women with breast cancer. Methods: This single-center, prospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. From November 2016 to October 2017, 84 patients who were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma (69/84) and ductal carcinoma in situ (15/84), and underwent both CEDM and CEMRI, were enrolled. Imaging findings and surgical management were correlated with pathological results and compared. The diagnostic performance of both modalities in the detection of index and secondary cancers (multifocality and multicentricity), and occult cancer in the contralateral breast, was compared. The authors also evaluated whether CEDM or CEMRI resulted in changes in the surgical management of the affected breast due to imaging-detected findings. Results: Eighty-four women were included in the analysis. Compared with CEMRI, CEDM demonstrated a similar sensitivity (92.9% [78/84] vs. 95.2% [80/84]) in detecting index cancer (p=0.563). For the detection of secondary cancers in the ipsilateral breast and occult cancer in the contralateral breast, no significant differences were found between CEDM and CEMRI (p=0.999 and p=0.999, respectively). Regarding changes in surgical management, CEDM resulted in similar changes compared with CEMRI (30.9% [26/84] vs. 29.7% [25/84], p=0.610). Regarding changes in surgical management due to false-positive findings, no significant differences were found between CEDM and CEMRI (34.6% [9/26] vs. 44.0% [11/25], p=0.782). Conclusion: CEDM demonstrated a diagnostic performance comparable with CEMRI in depicting index cancers, secondary cancers, and occult cancer in the contralateral breast. CEDM demonstrated similar changes in surgical management compared with CEMRI.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Kangbuk Samsung Hospital

References

  1. Miller BT, Abbott AM, Tuttle TM. The influence of preoperative MRI on breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:536-40. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1932-8
  2. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:290-302. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20028
  3. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3248-58. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108
  4. 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
  5. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229:261-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291021276
  6. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Engelken F, Krohn M, Singh JM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 2014;24:256-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3007-7
  7. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 2011;21:565-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
  8. Bilimoria KY, Cambic A, Hansen NM, Bethke KP. Evaluating the impact of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Arch Surg 2007;142:441-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.142.5.441
  9. Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, Andrews-Tang D, Roth A, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrastenhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology 2017;285:389-400. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161592
  10. Ali-Mucheru M, Pockaj B, Patel B, Pizzitola V, Wasif N, Stucky CC, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23(Suppl 5):649-55. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7
  11. The Korean Society of Radiology; The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Korean Clinical Practice Guideline for Adverse Reactions to Injectable Iodinated Contrast Agent and Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent Injection for MRI. 2nd ed. Seoul: The Korean Society of Radiology; 2016.
  12. Ren B, Ruth C, Zhang Y, Smith A, Kennedy D, O'Keefe B, et al. Dual energy iodine contrast imaging with mammography and tomosynthesis. Bellingham: The International Society for Optics and Photonics; 2013. p.9.
  13. American College of Radiology, BI-RADS Committee. ACR BI-RADS Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
  14. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, Fallenberg EM, Fischer T, Bick U, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2011;78:112-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.002
  15. Salgado R, Aftimos P, Sotiriou C, Desmedt C. Evolving paradigms in multifocal breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 2015;31:111-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2014.07.002
  16. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
  17. Kiluk JV, Acs G, Hoover SJ. High-risk benign breast lesions: current strategies in management. Cancer Control 2007;14:321-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/107327480701400402
  18. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, Harris JR, Khan SA, Horton J, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1507-15. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3935
  19. Hobbs MM, Taylor DB, Buzynski S, Peake RE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015;59:300-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12296
  20. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Beck R. Contrast-Enhanced MRI of the Breast. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 1996.
  21. Kuhl CK. MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 2000;10:46-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050006
  22. Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C, Panizza P, Del Frate C, Soldano F, Isola M, et al. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1723-32. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1898
  23. 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;266:743-51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084
  24. Nadler M, Al-Attar H, Warner E, Martel AL, Balasingham S, Zhang L, et al. MRI surveillance for women with dense breasts and a previous breast cancer and/or high risk lesion. Breast 2017;34:77-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.04.005
  25. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, Sesa L, Evers K, Sigurdson ER, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg 2009;209:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.04.010
  26. Delille JP, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED, Kopans DB, Garrido L. Physiologic changes in breast magnetic resonance imaging during the menstrual cycle: perfusion imaging, signal enhancement, and influence of the T1 relaxation time of breast tissue. Breast J 2005;11:236-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.21499.x
  27. King V, Gu Y, Kaplan JB, Brooks JD, Pike MC, Morris EA. Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2641-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2553-8
  28. King V, Brooks JD, Bernstein JL, Reiner AS, Pike MC, Morris EA. Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology 2011;260:50-60. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102156
  29. Sogani J, Morris EA, Kaplan JB, D'Alessio D, Goldman D, Moskowitz CS, et al. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology 2017;282:63-73. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160284
  30. Lobbes MB, Smidt ML, Houwers J, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Wildberger JE. Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clin Radiol 2013;68:935-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.04.009

Cited by

  1. Screening Breast Ultrasound Using Handheld or Automated Technique in Women with Dense Breasts vol.1, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz055
  2. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review vol.10, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0
  3. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review vol.2, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz074
  4. Evaluation of contrast‐enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Large‐scale single‐center experience vol.26, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13766
  5. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries vol.51, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00358-0
  6. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art vol.299, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021201948
  7. A Review of Breast Imaging for Timely Diagnosis of Disease vol.18, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115509
  8. Radiology in oncoplastic surgery vol.34, pp.suppl1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.senol.2021.07.005
  9. The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use vol.11, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01622-7