Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification.
CEDM
breast cancer
diagnostic accuracy
mammography
tomosynthesis
Journal
The breast journal
ISSN: 1524-4741
Titre abrégé: Breast J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9505539
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
02
04
2019
revised:
09
12
2019
accepted:
12
12
2019
pubmed:
31
12
2019
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
31
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography (CEDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and in combination compared to 2D digital mammography (MX) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in women with breast lesions. We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with breast lesions (BIRADS 3-5 at imaging or clinically suspicious). CEDM, DBT, and DCE-MRI 2D were acquired. Synthetized MX was obtained by DBT. A total of 134 lesions were investigated on 111 breasts of 100 enrolled patients: 53 were histopathologically proven as benign and 81 as malignant. Nonparametric statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were performed. Two-dimensional synthetized MX showed an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0.764 (sensitivity 65%, specificity 80%), while AUC was of 0.845 (sensitivity 80%, specificity 82%) for DBT, of 0.879 (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%) for CEDM, and of 0.892 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 84%) for CE-MRI. DCE-MRI determined an AUC of 0.934 (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%). Combined CEDM with DBT findings, we obtained an AUC of 0.890 (sensitivity 89%, specificity 74%). A difference statistically significant was observed only between DCE-MRI and CEDM (P = .03). DBT, CEDM, CEDM combined to tomosynthesis, and DCE-MRI had a high ability to identify multifocal and bilateral lesions with a detection rate of 77%, 85%, 91%, and 95% respectively, while 2D synthetized MX had a detection rate for multifocal lesions of 56%. DBT and CEDM have superior diagnostic accuracy of 2D synthetized MX to identify and classify breast lesions, and CEDM combined with DBT has better diagnostic performance compared with DBT alone. The best results in terms of diagnostic performance were obtained by DCE-MRI. Dynamic information obtained by time-intensity curve including entire phase of contrast agent uptake allows a better detection and classification of breast lesions.
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
860-872Informations de copyright
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Emaus MJ, Bakker MF, Peeters PH, et al. MR Imaging as an additional screening modality for the detection of breast cancer in women aged 50-75 years with extremely dense breasts: the DENSE trial study design. Radiology. 2015;277(2):527-537.
Loberg M, Lousdal ML, Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Benefits and harms of mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:63.
Lee EH, Kim KW, Kim YJ, et al. Performance of screening mammography: a report of the alliance for breast cancer screening in Korea. Korean J Radiol. 2016;17(4):489-496.
Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology. 2007;242(3):698-715.
Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Vande Putte G, et al. Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol. 2010;20(10):2307-2314.
Autier P, Boniol M. Mammography screening: a major issue in medicine. Eur J Cancer. 2018;90:34-62.
Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):302-315.
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study (TOMMY Trial). Radiology. 2015;277(3):697-706.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47-56.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):583-589.
Miglioretti DL, Abraham L, Lee CI, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: radiologist learning curve. Radiology. 2019;291(1):34-42.
Petrillo A, Fusco R, Petrillo M, et al. Added value of breast MRI for preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: diagnostic performance on 362 patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17(3):e127-e134.
Petrillo A, Fusco R, Filice S, et al. Breast contrast enhanced MR imaging: semi-automatic detection of vascular map and predominant feeding vessel. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161691.
Petrillo A, Porto A, Fusco R, et al. Surgical impact of preoperative breast MRI in women below 40 years of age. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(3):527-533.
Esserman LJ, Kumar AS, Herrera AF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4603-4610.
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(5):290-302.
Van Goethem M, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Parizel PM. MR is/is not a useful diagnostic tool for breast cancer management. Acta Chir Belg. 2007;107(3):267-270.
Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG, O'Dell CA, Brekke CE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging. Am J Surg. 2008;196(3):389-397.
Mann RM, Veltman J, Barentsz JO, Wobbes T, Blickman JG, Boetes C. The value of MRI compared to mammography in the assessment of tumour extent in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34(2):135-142.
Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:34-42.
Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Garbay JR, Delaloge S. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:565-574.
Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Engelken F, Krohn M, Singh JM. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:256-264.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, 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.
Badr S, Laurent N, Regis C, Boulanger L, Lemaille S, Poncelet E. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95:245-258.
https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads
Alshafei TU, Nguyen JV, Rochman CM, Nicholson BT, Patrie JT, Harvey JA. Outcome of architectural distortion detected only at breast tomosynthesis versus 2D mammography. Radiology. 2018;288(1):38-46.
Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13-19.
Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2394-2403.
Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, et al. Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2019;293(1):81-88.
Sorin V, Yagil Y, Yosepovich A, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk and dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(5):W267-W274.
Łuczyńska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E, et al. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Int Med J Exp Clin Res. 2015;21:1358-1367.
Li L, Roth R, Germaine P, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(2):113-123.
Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, et al. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):489-496.
Yang TL, Liang HL, Chou CP, Huang JS, Pan HB. The adjunctive digital breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:597253.
Hayse B, Hooley RJ, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR. Breast cancer biology varies by method of detection and may contribute to overdiagnosis. Surgery. 2016;160(2):454-462.
Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78(1):112-121.
Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD, et al. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2017;97:37-43.