Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 10/2014

01.10.2014 | Breast

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

verfasst von: 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

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 10/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To analyse the accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in dense breasts in comparison with contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography (CESM) and conventional mammography (Mx).

Materials and methods

CESM cases of dense breasts with histological proof were evaluated in the present study. Four radiologists with varying experience in mammography interpretation blindly read Mx first, followed by CESM. The diagnostic profiles, consistency and learning curve were analysed statistically.

Results

One hundred lesions (28 benign and 72 breast malignancies) in 89 females were analysed. Use of CESM improved the cancer diagnosis by 21.2 % in sensitivity (71.5 % to 92.7 %), by 16.1 % in specificity (51.8 % to 67.9 %) and by 19.8 % in accuracy (65.9 % to 85.8 %) compared with Mx. The interobserver diagnostic consistency was markedly higher using CESM than using Mx alone (0.6235 vs. 0.3869 using the kappa ratio). The probability of a correct prediction was elevated from 80 % to 90 % after 75 consecutive case readings.

Conclusion

CESM provided additional information with consistent improvement of the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared to Mx alone. The prediction of the diagnosis could be improved by the interpretation of a significant number of cases in the presence of 6 % benign contrast enhancement in this study.

Key Points

DE-CESM improves the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared with mammography.
DE-CESM shows greater consistency than mammography alone by interobserver blind reading.
Diagnostic improvement of DE-CESM is independent of the mammographic reading experience.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK et al (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360PubMedCrossRef Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK et al (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR et al (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511–518PubMedCrossRef Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR et al (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511–518PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital mammography versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital mammography versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Holland R, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH et al (1982) So-called interval cancers of the breast: pathologic and radiologic analysis of sixty-four cases. Cancer 49:2527–2533PubMedCrossRef Holland R, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH et al (1982) So-called interval cancers of the breast: pathologic and radiologic analysis of sixty-four cases. Cancer 49:2527–2533PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O’Laoide R et al (1994) Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Clin Radiol 49:123–125PubMedCrossRef Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O’Laoide R et al (1994) Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Clin Radiol 49:123–125PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182PubMedCrossRef Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649PubMedCrossRef Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 265:59–69PubMedCrossRef Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 265:59–69PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C et al (2003) Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1675–1679PubMedCrossRef Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C et al (2003) Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1675–1679PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A et al (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544PubMedCrossRef Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A et al (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M et al (2009) Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 252:665–672PubMedCrossRef Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M et al (2009) Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 252:665–672PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS et al (2008) BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology 248:773–781PubMedCrossRef Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS et al (2008) BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology 248:773–781PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R et al (2008) Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:573–578PubMedCrossRef Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R et al (2008) Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:573–578PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ et al (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high- risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626PubMedCrossRef Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ et al (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high- risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228PubMedCrossRef Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850PubMedCrossRef Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F et al (2005) Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 40:397–404PubMedCrossRef Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F et al (2005) Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 40:397–404PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W528–W537PubMedCrossRef Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W528–W537PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574PubMedCrossRef Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V et al (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268PubMedCrossRef Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V et al (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Su MY, Cheung YC, Fruehauf JP et al (2003) Correlation of dynamic contrast enhancement MRI parameters with microvessel density and VEGF for assessment of angiogenesis in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 18:467–477PubMedCrossRef Su MY, Cheung YC, Fruehauf JP et al (2003) Correlation of dynamic contrast enhancement MRI parameters with microvessel density and VEGF for assessment of angiogenesis in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 18:467–477PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhiuse JH (2002) 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 225:165–175PubMedCrossRef Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhiuse JH (2002) 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 225:165–175PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F et al (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 14:R94PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F et al (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 14:R94PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308PubMedCrossRef Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A et al (2013) Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 23:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A et al (2013) Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 23:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672PubMedCrossRef Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449PubMedCrossRef Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78:112–121PubMedCrossRef Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78:112–121PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA et al (2006) Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:426–430PubMedCrossRef Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA et al (2006) Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:426–430PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis
verfasst von
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
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2014
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2014

European Radiology 10/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.