Preclinical Study of Diagnostic Performances of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Versus MRI for Breast Diseases in China

Qingguo Wang,Kangan Li,Lihui Wang,Jianbing Zhang,Zhiguo Zhou,Yan Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2385-0

2016-01-01

SpringerPlus

Abstract:To evaluate diagnostic performances of CESM for breast diseases with comparison to breast MRI in China.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography

Jiang Tingting,Zhang Shengjian,Li Ruimin,Wu Jian,Gu Yajia,Peng Weijun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1005?1201.2017.04.008

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective To assess the value of contrast enhanced mammography (CESM) in the detection of breast cancer. Methods A total of 145 patients who were suspected of breast abnormalities by clinical examination or ultrasound were prospectively collected. All patients underwent bilateral breast CESM and MRI examinations. Breast CESM and MRI examination were completed in the same week. The pathological specimens were analyzed and the maximum diameters of pathological lesions were measured. The lesions were observed on low energy(LE), CESM and MRI images, and then the maximum diameters of lesions on the above images were measured. Using pathology results as the gold standard, the diagnostic efficacy of LE, CESM and MRI were analyzed by ROC curve, and Z test was used to compare the areas under the ROC curves among different imaging methods. Bland-Altman method was used to analyze the consistency of the maximum diameters of the lesions obtained with different imaging methods. Results One hundred and fifty three lesions were found in 145 patients, in which 36 were benign and 117 were malignant. The LE, CESM and MRI showed 140, 151 and 149 lesions respectively, and the qualitative diagnostic errors were 25, 8 and 11, respectively. The areas under ROC curves of LE, CESM and MRI were 0.87, 0.96 and 0.97 respectively. There was significant difference of the area under ROC curve between CESM and LE, so did the MRI and LE (P<0.05), but there was not significant difference between CESM and MRI (P=0.51). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in the diagnosis of malignant breast lesions were 88.98%, 65.71% and 83.66% for LE, while they were 95.80%, 91.18% and 94.77% for CESM, 94.17%, 87.88%and 92.81%for MRI. The average difference of diameters between LE, CESM, MRI and pathologic size was-1.7, 1.1 and 0.3 mm, respectively, with 95%consistency interval range of-18.6 to 15.1,-9.8 to 12.1,-10.6 to 11.2 mm, respectively. There was best consistency between the pathological size and the size on MRI. Conclusion CESM can significantly improve the diagnostic efficacy of breast lesions, which is comparable with MRI.
Can Combined Screening of Ultrasound and Elastography Improve Breast Cancer Identification Compared with MRI in Women with Dense Breasts-a Multicenter Prospective Study

Lu-Ying Gao,Yang Gu,Wen Xu,Jia-Wei Tian,Li-Xue Yin,Hai-Tao Ran,Wei-Dong Ren,Yu-Ming Mu,Jie-Ying Zhang,Cai Chang,Jian-Jun Yuan,Chun-Song Kang,You-Bin Deng,Hui Wang,Xiao-Yan Xie,Bao-Ming Luo,Sheng-Lan Guo,Qi Zhou,En-Sheng Xue,Wei-Wei Zhan,Tong Jiao,Qing Zhou,Jie Li,Ping Zhou,Pin-Tong Huang,Hong-Yuan Xue,Chun-Quan Zhang,Man Chen,Xiang-Xiang Jing,Ying Gu,Jian-Feng Guo,Hong-Yu Ding,Jin-Feng Xu,Wu Chen,Li Liu,Yu-Hong Zhang,Hong-Qiao Wang,Zhong-Ping Mu,Jian-Chu Li,Hong-Yan Wang,Yu-Xin Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.43326

IF: 3.9

2020-01-01

Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Objectives: To assess the performance of elastography (ES) and ultrasound (US) in predicting the malignancy of breast lesions and to compare their combined diagnostic value with that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: The study prospectively enrolled 242 female patients with dense breasts treated in 35 heath care facilities in China between November 2018 and October 2019. Based on conventional US and elastography, radiologists classified the degree of suspicion of breast lesions according to the US Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria. The diagnostic value was compared between US BI-RADS and MRI BI-RADS, with pathological results used as the reference standard. Results: The results demonstrated that irregular tumor shape, a nonparallel growth orientation, indistinct margins, angular contours, microcalcifications, color Doppler flow and ES score on US imaging were significantly related to breast cancer in dense breasts (P=0.001; P=0.001; P=0.008; P<0.001; P=0.019; P=0.008; P=0.002, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy and AUC of US BI-RADS category were 94.7%, 90.7%, 95.8%, 88.0%, 93.4% and 0.93 (95%CI, 0.88-0.97), respectively, while those of MRI BI-RADS category were 98.2%, 57.5%, 84.3%, 83.3%, 86.0% and 0.78 (95%CI, 0.71-0.85), respectively. MRI BI-RADS showed a significantly higher sensitivity than US BI-RADS (98.2% vs 94.7%, P=0.043), whereas US BI-RADS showed significantly higher specificity (90.7% vs 57.5%, P<0.001). US BI-RADS showed better diagnostic efficiency in differentiating nodules in dense breasts than MRI BI-RADS (AUC 0.93 vs 0.78, P<0.001). Conclusion: By combining the use of ES and conventional US, US BI-RADS had better diagnostic efficiency in differentiating nodules in dense breasts than MRI. For the diagnosis of malignant tumors in patients with dense breasts, MRI and US BI-RADS can be used as supplemental diagnostic tools to detect lesions, with US BI-RADS considered the preferred adjunctive resource.
Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer

Liu,J.,Xiao,R.,Yin,H.,Hu,Y.,Zhen,S.,Zhou,S.,Han,D.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069788

IF: 3.006

2024-09-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective The objective is to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Design Data sources PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries up to 18 June 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included trials studies, compared the results of different researchers on CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, and calculated the diagnostic value of CESM for breast cancer. Data extraction and synthesis Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) evaluated the methodological quality of all the included studies. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses specification. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, other important parameters were explored in an analysis of CESM accuracy for breast cancer diagnosis. For overall accuracy estimation, summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. STATA V.14.0 was used for all analyses. Results This meta-analysis included a total of 12 studies. According to the summary estimates for CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.85), respectively. Positive likelihood ratio was 4.03 (95% CI 2.65 to 6.11), negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.09) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 89.49 (95% CI 45.78 to 174.92). Moreover, there was a 0.95 area under the curve. Conclusions The CESM has high sensitivity and good specificity when it comes to evaluating breast cancer, particularly in women with dense breasts. Thus, provide more information for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

medicine, general & internal
Diagnostic Evaluations of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mammary Duct Ectasia and Breast Cancer

Lei Song,Liang Li,Bin Liu,Dexin Yu,Fengguo Sun,Mingming Guo,Zhengmin Ruan,Feixue Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.7514

2018-01-01

Oncology Letters

Abstract:The objective of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia (MDE) and breast cancer. This retrospective study was performed on 35 patients with MDE and 105 patients with breast cancer using US and MRI. Imaging features, semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters were analyzed to determine their diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer. The average age of patients with breast cancer was increased compared with that of patients with MDE. There were no significant differences in local packages with or without tenderness ratio (P=0.259) and grade of color Doppler flow imaging (P=0.273) between the two groups. However, the morphological changes were significantly increased in breast cancer compared with MDE. In addition, there were significant diagnostic differences in US and MRI between breast cancer and MDE, including resistance index, US elastography, time-signal intensity curve, apparent diffusion coefficient, early-stage enhancement ratio, peak-of-enhancement ratio and T-peak (P<0.05). However, there were no observable significant diagnostic differences between US, MRI and US with MRI for MDE and breast cancer (P=0.103, P=0.263 and P=0.403 respectively). Diagnosis of MDE and breast cancer requires full evaluation of multiple parameters and morphological changes of US and MRI to increase the diagnostic efficiency. US, MRI and US with MRI were all of diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer, while US with MRI had the highest efficacy.
Comparative Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Diagnosing and Treating Breast Cancer

Di Yang,Fei Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.941880

2023-12-13

Abstract:BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the diagnosis and chemotherapy of breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed data on 125 lesions of 115 patients with breast diseases in Lanzhou First People's Hospital from January 2020 to June 2022. Patients were examined by digital breast tomographic fusion and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography after chemotherapy. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 imaging techniques, and the diagnostic efficacy was evaluated with ROC curves. RESULTS There were significant differences in the type and degree of CESM enhancement between benign and malignant lesions. Malignant lesions mostly showed moderate to severe enhancement, while benign lesions mostly showed mild to moderate enhancement. There was no significant difference in DBT manifestations between benign and malignant lesions. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 88 patients had pathological remission, and the remission rate was 70.40%. Thirty-seven patients did not respond (nonresponse rate: 29.60%). The accuracy of CESM lesion size assessment was 84.00% (105/125), with high consistency. The accuracy of DBT lesion size assessment was 68.00% (85/125), and the consistency was poor. BI-RADS 4B was the truncation point. CESM had significantly higher sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value than DBT. In premenopausal patients and patients aged less than 50 years, the diagnostic efficacy of DBT and CESM was significantly different. CONCLUSIONS The diagnostic efficacy of CESM was significantly better than DBT in premenopausal women and patients under age 50. Diagnosis and treatment of breast diseases may be enhanced by the use of CESM.
Contrast-Enhanced Mammogram: A New Game-Changer in Breast Imaging. Indications with Case-Based Experience

Niketa Chotai,Siu Cheng Loke,Ern Yu Tan,Chotai Niketa,Loke Siu Cheng,Tan Ern Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/abcr.2021.104016

2021-01-01

Advances in Breast Cancer Research

Abstract:Mammograms are the mainstay of diagnostic breast imaging and cancer screening. Despite advances in technology such as Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), these imaging techniques are purely structural, and are unable to overcome shortcomings in mammography posed by dense breast parenchyma. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive modality in breast imaging, due to its functional aspect s in addition to structural imaging with this modality. The use of MRI is however constrained by cost and availability. The utilization of intravenous contrast with mammograms introduces a functional element to imaging. This greatly improves the sensitivity of the examination, approaching sensitivity levels of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the detection of primary breast cancer. With increased sensitivity afforded by assessment of tumor neo - vascularity, as well as its low cost, low energy imaging that is more readily available than MRI, Contrast - Enhanced Mammography (CEM) if more readily available than MRI, this imaging modality is a potential game - changer in breast imaging. In this article, we share our experience in the use of CEM, for indications previously reserved for MRI, with the literature review of these indications. In resonance with prior studies, we echo the ease of performing and reporting of CEM as well as greater patient comfort as the distinct advantages of CEM. In spite of slightly higher radiation dose and some risk s related to contrast media, functional results at a significantly lower cost may change h ow we practice breast imaging in the future using CEM.
Retrospective and comparative analysis of 99m Tc-Sestamibi breast specific gamma imaging versus mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Chinese women

Xiuyan Yu,Guoming Hu,Zhigang Zhang,Fuming Qiu,Xuan Shao,Xiaochen Wang,Hongwei Zhan,Yiding Chen,Yongchuan Deng,Jian Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2537-1

IF: 4.638

2016-01-01

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Background Diagnosing breast cancer during the early stage may be helpful for decreasing cancer-related mortality. In Western developed countries, mammographies have been the gold standard for breast cancer detection. However, Chinese women usually have denser and smaller-sized breasts compared to Caucasian women, which decreases the diagnostic accuracy of mammography. However, breast specific gamma imaging, a type of molecular functional breast imaging, has been used for the accurate diagnosis of breast cancer and is not influenced by breast density. Our objective was to analyze the breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI) diagnostic value for Chinese women. Methods During a 2-year period, 357 women were diagnosed and treated at our oncology department and received BSGI in addition to mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnostic assessment. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of each method of detection and compared the biological profiles of the four imaging methods. Results A total of 357 women received a final surgical pathology diagnosis, with 168 malignant diseases (58.5 %) and 119 benign diseases (41.5 %). Of these, 166 underwent the four imaging tests preoperatively. The sensitivity of BSGI was 80.35 and 82.14 % by US, 75.6 % by MMG, and 94.06 % by MRI. Furthermore, the breast cancer diagnosis specificity of BSGI was high (83.19 % vs. 77.31 % vs. 66.39 % vs. 67.69 %, respectively). The BSGI diagnostic sensitivity for mammographic breast density in women was superior to mammography and more sensitive for non-luminal A subtypes (luminal A vs. non-luminal A, 68.63 % vs. 88.30 %). Conclusions BSGI may help improve the ability to diagnose early stage breast cancer for Chinese women, particularly for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), mammographic breast density and non-luminal A breast cancer.
How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature

Federica Vasselli,Alessandra Fabi,Francesca Romana Ferranti,Maddalena Barba,Claudio Botti,Antonello Vidiri,Silvia Tommasin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.859838

IF: 4.7

2022-07-22

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Introduction: In the past decade, a new technique derived from full-field digital mammography has been developed, named contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). The aim of this study was to define the association between CESM findings and usual prognostic factors, such as estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, HER2, and Ki67, in order to offer an updated overview of the state of the art for the early differential diagnosis of breast cancer and following personalized treatments. Materials and Methods: According to the PRISMA guidelines, two electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) were investigated, using the following keywords: breast cancer AND (CESM OR contrast enhanced spectral mammography OR contrast enhanced dual energy mammography) AND (receptors OR prognostic factors OR HER2 OR progesterone OR estrogen OR Ki67). The search was concluded in August 2021. No restriction was applied to publication dates. Results: We obtained 28 articles from the research in PubMed and 114 articles from Scopus. After the removal of six replicas that were counted only once, out of 136 articles, 37 articles were reviews. Eight articles alone have tackled the relation between CESM imaging and ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67. When comparing radiological characterization of the lesions obtained by either CESM or contrast-enhanced MRI, they have a similar association with the proliferation of tumoral cells, as expressed by Ki-67. In CESM-enhanced lesions, the expression was found to be 100% for ER and 77.4% for PR, while moderate or high HER2 positivity was found in lesions with non-mass enhancement and with mass closely associated with a non-mass enhancement component. Conversely, the non-enhancing breast cancer lesions were not associated with any prognostic factor, such as ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67, which may be associated with the probability of showing enhancement. Radiomics on CESM images has the potential for non-invasive characterization of potentially heterogeneous tumors with different hormone receptor status. Conclusions: CESM enhancement is associated with the proliferation of tumoral cells, as well as to the expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors. As CESM is a relatively young imaging technique, a few related works were found; this may be due to the "off-label" modality. In the next few years, the role of CESM in breast cancer diagnostics will be more thoroughly investigated.

oncology
Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Min Kaiyin,Tong Lingling,Tang Leilei,Li Wenjia,Ji Bin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07034-7

2023-09-16

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract:Breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) are in need of a more patient-friendly imaging modality such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for monitoring therapy response. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performances of CEM and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) for assessing pathological complete response (pCR) in these patients.

oncology
Retrospective and Comparative Analysis of 99Mtc-Sestamibi Breast Specific Gamma Imaging Versus Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Breast Cancer in Chinese Women

Xijie Yu,Guoming Hu,Zhigang Zhang,Fuming Qiu,Xuan Shao,Xiaochen Wang,Hongwei Zhan,Yiding Chen,Yongchuan Deng,Jian Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2537-1

IF: 4.638

2016-01-01

BMC Cancer

Abstract:Diagnosing breast cancer during the early stage may be helpful for decreasing cancer-related mortality. In Western developed countries, mammographies have been the gold standard for breast cancer detection. However, Chinese women usually have denser and smaller-sized breasts compared to Caucasian women, which decreases the diagnostic accuracy of mammography. However, breast specific gamma imaging, a type of molecular functional breast imaging, has been used for the accurate diagnosis of breast cancer and is not influenced by breast density. Our objective was to analyze the breast specific gamma imaging (BSGI) diagnostic value for Chinese women.During a 2-year period, 357 women were diagnosed and treated at our oncology department and received BSGI in addition to mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnostic assessment. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of each method of detection and compared the biological profiles of the four imaging methods.A total of 357 women received a final surgical pathology diagnosis, with 168 malignant diseases (58.5 %) and 119 benign diseases (41.5 %). Of these, 166 underwent the four imaging tests preoperatively. The sensitivity of BSGI was 80.35 and 82.14 % by US, 75.6 % by MMG, and 94.06 % by MRI. Furthermore, the breast cancer diagnosis specificity of BSGI was high (83.19 % vs. 77.31 % vs. 66.39 % vs. 67.69 %, respectively). The BSGI diagnostic sensitivity for mammographic breast density in women was superior to mammography and more sensitive for non-luminal A subtypes (luminal A vs. non-luminal A, 68.63 % vs. 88.30 %).BSGI may help improve the ability to diagnose early stage breast cancer for Chinese women, particularly for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), mammographic breast density and non-luminal A breast cancer.
Head-to-head Comparison of Perfluorobutane Contrast-Enhanced US and Multiparametric MRI for Breast Cancer: a Prospective, Multicenter Study

Manlin Lang,Ping Liang,Haibo Shen,Hang Li,Ning Yang,Bin Chen,Yixu Chen,Hong Ding,Weiping Yang,Xiaohui Ji,Ping Zhou,Ligang Cui,Jiandong Wang,Weihua Xu,Xiuqin Ye,Zhixing Liu,Yang Yu,Tianci Wei,Hui Wang,Yuanyuan Yan,Changjun Wu,Yiyun Wu,Jingwen Shi,Yaxi Wang,Xiuxia Fang,Ran li,Jie Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2191087/v1

2022-01-01

Abstract:Background: Multiparametric - Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MP-MRI) has high sensitivity for diagnosing breast cancers but cannot always be used as a routine diagnostic tool. To evaluate whether the diagnostic performance of Perfluorobutane (PFB)-contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is like MP-MRI in the breast cancer and if combining the two methods would enhance diagnostic efficiency. Patients and Methods: This was a head-to-head, prospective, multicenter study. Patients with breast lesions diagnosed by US as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3, 4, and 5 categories underwent both PFB-CEUS and MP-MRI scans. On-site operators and three reviewers categorized the BI-RADS of all lesions on two images, respectively. Logistic-bootstrap 1000-sample analysis and cross-validation were used to construct PFB-CEUS, MP-MRI, and hybrid (PFB-CEUS + MP-MRI) models to distinguish breast lesions. Results : In total, 179 women with 186 breast lesions were evaluated from 17 centers in China. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the PFB-CEUS model (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74, 0.97) was like that of the MP-MRI model (0.89; 95% CI: 0.73, 0.97), whereas both were inferior to the hybrid model (0.92, 95% CI: 0.77, 0.98). 90.3% false-positive and 66.7% false-negative results of PFB-CEUS radiologists, 90.5% false-positive and 42.8% false-negative results of MP-MRI radiologists could be corrected by Hybrid model, respectively. Dynamic nomograms of three models are accessible on websites. Conclusions : PFB-CEUS can be used in differential diagnosis of breast cancer with the performance comparable to MP-MRI. Using PFB-CEUS and MP-MRI as joint diagnostics could further strengthen the diagnostic ability. Trial registration : Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04657328. Registered 26 September 2020.
Diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score for contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in breast masses: A Comparative Study

Bei Hua,Guang Yang,Yong Wang,Jun Chen,Xiaocui Rong,Tao Yuan,Guanmin Quan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.09.054

IF: 5.482

2024-10-13

Academic Radiology

Abstract:Rationale and Objectives The Kaiser score (KS) is a simple and intuitive machine-learning derived decision rule for characterizing breast lesions in a clinical setting and screening for breast cancer. The present study aims to investigate the applicability of the KS for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in breast masses, and to compare its diagnostic accuracy with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CEM may provide an alternative option for patients with breast masses, especially for those with MRI contraindications. Materials and Methods Two hundred and seventy-five patients with breast enhanced masses were included in the study from May 2019 to September 2022. Patients were further divided into benign and malignant groups based on pathological diagnosis. The CEM and MRI imaging characteristics of these two groups were analyzed statistically. The paired chi-square and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) analysis were used to compare imaging characteristics between CEM and MRI. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and KS for CEM and MRI were evaluated based on imaging characteristics. The diagnostic performance of BI-RADS and KS for CEM and MRI was assessed and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and DeLong's test. Results The imaging characteristics of root sign, time-signal intensity curve (TIC/mTIC), margin, internal enhancement pattern (IEP), edema, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, and suspicious malignant microcalcifications showed significant differences between benign and malignant lesions (all p ≤ 0.011). The detection rate of root sign and margin showed substantial agreement between CEM and MRI (κ = 0.656, κ = 0.640), but IEP, TIC/mTIC, and edema showed poor agreement (κ = 0.380, κ = 0.320, κ = 0.324). For all lesion analyses, the area under the curves (AUCs) of the KS (0.897 ∼ 0.932) were higher than that of BI-RADS (0.691) in CEM (all p < 0.001). The AUC of KS (calcification)-CEM (0.932) was higher than those of both KS-CEM and KS (edema)-CEM (0.897 and 0.899) (all p < 0.001). For subgroup analyses, the AUCs of the KS (0.875 ∼ 0.876) were higher than that of BI-RADS (0.740) in MRI (all p < 0.001). The AUCs of KS-MRI (0.876) and KS (ADC)-MRI (0.875) were similar to those of KS-CEM (0.878) and KS (edema)-CEM (0.870) (all p > 0.100). The AUC of KS (calcification)-CEM (0.934) was slightly higher than those of both KS-MRI (0.876) and KS (ADC)-MRI (0.875), but no significant difference was observed ( p = 0.051; p = 0.071). Conclusion The KS for CEM provided high diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing breast masses, comparable to that of MRI. The application of KS (calcification)-CEM combined with suspicious malignant microcalcifications can improve diagnostic efficiency with an AUC of 0.932 ∼ 0.934. However, edema did not significantly improve performance when using the KS for CEM.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Diagnostic performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Shu‐ting Lin,Hong‐jiang Li,Yi‐zhong Li,Qian‐qian Chen,Jia‐yi Ye,Shu Lin,Si‐qing Cai,Jian‐guo Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.7128

IF: 4.711

2024-04-26

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:Purpose Contrast‐enhanced spectral imaging (CEM) is a new mammography technique, but its diagnostic value in dense breasts is still inconclusive. We did a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. Materials and Methods The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically until August 6, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies were included to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. The QUADAS‐2 tool was used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. STATA V.16.0 and Review Manager V.5.3 were used to meta‐analyze the included studies. Results A total of 10 studies (827 patients, 958 lesions) were included. These 10 studies reported the diagnostic performance of CEM for the workup of suspicious lesions in patients with dense breasts. The summary sensitivity and summary specificity were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70–0.89), respectively. Enhanced lesions, circumscribed margins, and malignancy were statistically correlated. The relative malignancy OR value of the enhanced lesions was 28.11 (95% CI, 6.84–115.48). The relative malignancy OR value of circumscribed margins was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07–0.45). Conclusion CEM has high diagnostic performance in the workup of suspicious findings in dense breasts, and when lesions are enhanced and have irregular margins, they are often malignant.

oncology
Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography vs. Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Çağdaş Rıza Açar,Sebnem Orguc

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2024.04.007

IF: 3.078

2024-04-17

Clinical Breast Cancer

Abstract:Introduction In contemporary medical practice, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive modality for detecting breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), a relatively recent technology, represents another contrast-enhanced imaging technique that has the potential to serve as an alternative to breast MRI. Our main goal is to compare the diagnostic accuracy including assessment of sensitivity and specificity of these two contrast-enhanced breast imaging methods, CEM and MRI, in the diagnosis and characterization of breast lesions. Material and Methods Our prospective study included patients who were clinically suspected of malignancy and/or had suspicious findings detected by mammography or ultrasound. A total of 116 patients were included, and both CEM and MRI examinations were performed on all patients. All CEM examinations were conducted at our institution, while 56.89% of all MRI examinations were carried out at external centers. While histopathological results were accessible for all malignant lesions, the final diagnosis for 80.5% of benign lesions was established through typical imaging findings and adequate follow-up. Results This study encompassed a total of 219 lesions, with 125 out of 219 (57.07%) malignant lesions and 94 out of 219 (42.92%) benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity values were 98.40% and 81.91%, respectively, for CEM, and 100% and 75.33%, respectively, for MRI. Moreover, CEM showcased comparable performance to MRI in evaluating women with dense breasts. Conclusion CEM and MRI were compared for breast lesion diagnosis, with MRI showing higher sensitivity and CEM higher specificity; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Microabstract Our main goal is to compare the performance CEM and MRI, in the diagnosis and characterization of breast lesions. A total of 116 patients were included, and both CEM and MRI examinations were performed on all patients. This study encompassed a total of 219 lesions, with 125 out of 219 (57.07%) being malignant and 94 out of 219 (42.92%) being benign. CEM has comparable diagnostic performance with MRI.

oncology
Clinical study of digital mammography, contrast-enhanced MRI as well as their combination in the diagnosis of breast cancer

Fang Ye,Mengsu Zeng,Fuhua Yan,Wei Feng,Meiling Zhou,Renchen Li,Wenfang Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10330-008-0018-y

2008-01-01

The Chinese-German Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Objective To compare the effectiveness of digital mammography and MRI in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer and to assess the value of these modalities as well as the combination of the two. Methods Sixty-seven patients with surgery and pathology proved breast lesion (malignant, n = 32; benign, n = 46) underwent digital mammography and MRI, the pulse sequences included T 1 WI, T 2 WI, diffuse weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI before surgery. Of the results of these two modalities, all lesions were classified into 5 groups according to BI-RADS classification, and the imaging findings were correlated to histopathology. The sensitivity and specificity of each modality as well as the combination of the two were calculated. Results Of these 78 breasts lesions, The sensitivity was 78.13%% (25/32) for digital mammography and 93.75% (30/32) for MRI ( P > 0.05). The specificity was 73.91%% (34/46) and 89.13% (41/46) accordingly ( P < 0.05), both of them showed statistical difference. The sensitivity and specificity was 98.63% and 97.16% respectively as these two modalities were used in combination. Conclusion Digital mammography in combination with MRI is helpful in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the sensitivity and specificity was enhanced when compared to that of single modality.
Comparative Study of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and MRI Used in Breast Intraductal Lesions

Qi Zhang

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the image features of contrast-enhanced ultrasound(CEUS)and MRI in diagnosing breast intraductal lesions. Methods Twenty-six patients with intraductal lesions of breast were examined with CEUS and MRI. The image features of the two methods were analyzed. The coincidence rate of the two methods in diagnosing benign and malignant lesions was compared. Results The sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value and accuracy rate of CEUS and MRI in 26 patients were 81.81%,86.67%,81.81%,86.67%,84.62% and 63.64%,80%,70%,75%, 73.08%. Conclusion CEUS and MRI are important in diagnosing breast intraductal lesions.
Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study

Qin-xin Zhao,Chong Wu,Shuilian Tan,Yongfeng Yang,Xin-Wu Cui,Christoph F. Dietrich,Bin Yang,Chao-li Xu,Yong-yan Gao,Ming-xing Xie,Chang-jun Wu,Li-ping Liu,Xing-hua Wang,Run-ze Ling-hu,Ning Wang,Fei Wang,Xiu-li Wang,Guo-yan Liu,Xiao-ling Yu,Jie Yu,Zhi-gang Cheng,Ping Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7

2024-05-10

World Journal of Urology

Abstract:To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ–CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE–CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE–MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.

urology & nephrology
Comparison of Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced MRI and Non‐Mono‐Exponential Model‐Based Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging for the Prediction of Prognostic Biomarkers and Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer Based on Radiomics

Lan Zhang,Xin‐Xiang Zhou,Lu Liu,Ao‐Yu Liu,Wen‐Juan Zhao,Hong‐Xia Zhang,Yue‐Min Zhu,Zi‐Xiang Kuai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28611

IF: 4.4

2023-01-22

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Abstract:Background Dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) MRI and non‐mono‐exponential model‐based diffusion‐weighted imaging (NME‐DWI) that does not require contrast agent can both characterize breast cancer. However, which technique is superior remains unclear. Purpose To compare the performances of DCE‐MRI, NME‐DWI and their combination as multiparametric MRI (MP‐MRI) in the prediction of breast cancer prognostic biomarkers and molecular subtypes based on radiomics. Study Type Prospective. Population A total of 477 female patients with 483 breast cancers (5‐fold cross‐validation: training/validation, 80%/20%). Field Strength/Sequence A 3.0 T/DCE‐MRI (6 dynamic frames) and NME‐DWI (13 b values). Assessment After data preprocessing, high‐throughput features were extracted from each tumor volume of interest, and optimal features were selected using recursive feature elimination method. To identify ER+ vs. ER−, PR+ vs. PR−, HER2+ vs. HER2−, Ki‐67+ vs. Ki‐67−, luminal A/B vs. nonluminal A/B, and triple negative (TN) vs. non‐TN, the following models were implemented: random forest, adaptive boosting, support vector machine, linear discriminant analysis, and logistic regression. Statistical Tests Student's t, chi‐square, and Fisher's exact tests were applied on clinical characteristics to confirm whether significant differences exist between different statuses (±) of prognostic biomarkers or molecular subtypes. The model performances were compared between the DCE‐MRI, NME‐DWI, and MP‐MRI datasets using the area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the DeLong test. P

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
The diagnostic performance of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound and mammography in symptomatic outpatient women: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in China

Xi Lin,Mengmeng Jia,Xiang Zhou,Lingyun Bao,Yaqing Chen,Peifang Liu,Ruimei Feng,Xi Zhang,Luoxi Zhu,Hui Wang,Ying Zhu,Guoxue Tang,Wenqi Feng,Anhua Li,Youlin Qiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07197-7

IF: 7.034

2020-08-27

European Radiology

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer by comparing it to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography (MG).

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Sensitivity of Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI vs X-ray Mammography Based on Cancer Histology, Tumor Grading, Receptor Status, and Molecular Subtype: A Supplemental Analysis of 2 Large Phase III Studies

Jan Endrikat,Gilda Schmidt,Daniel Haverstock,Olaf Weber,Zuzana Jirakova Trnkova,Jörg Barkhausen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/11782234221092155

2022-04-19

Abstract:Background: The impact of certain tumor parameters on the sensitivity of imaging tools is unknown. The purpose was to study the impact of breast cancer histology, tumor grading, single receptor status, and molecular subtype on the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-BMRI) vs X-ray mammography (XRM) to detect breast cancer. Materials and methods: We ran a supplemental analysis of 2 global Phase III studies which recruited patients with histologically proven breast cancers. The sensitivity of CE-BMRI vs XRM to detect cancer lesions with different histologies, tumor grading, single receptor status, and molecular subtype was compared. Six blinded readers for each study evaluated the images. Results were summarized as the "Mean Reader." For each reader, sensitivity was defined as the proportion of detected lesions vs the total number of lesions identified by the standard of reference. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for within-group proportions, and for the difference between CE-BMRI and XRM, using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Results: In 778 patients, 1273 cancer lesions were detected. A total of 435 patients had 1 lesion, 254 had 2 lesions, and 77 had 3 or more lesions. The sensitivity of CE-BMRI was significantly higher compared with XRM irrespective of the histology. The largest difference was seen for invasive lobular carcinoma (22.3%) and ductal carcinoma in situ (19%). Across all 3 tumor grades, the sensitivity advantage of CE-BMRI over XRM ranged from 15.7% to 18.5%. Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging showed higher sensitivity compared with XRM irrespective of single receptor expressions (15.3%-19.4%). The sensitivities for both imaging methods were numerically higher for the more aggressive ER- (estrogen receptor), PR- (progesterone receptor), and HER2+ (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) tumors. Irrespective of molecular subtype, sensitivity of CE-BMRI was 14.8% to 18.9% higher compared with XRM. Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging showed significantly higher sensitivity compared with XRM independent of tumor histology, tumor grading, single receptor status, and molecular subtype.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01067976 and NCT01104584.

Preclinical Study of Diagnostic Performances of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Versus MRI for Breast Diseases in China

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography

Can Combined Screening of Ultrasound and Elastography Improve Breast Cancer Identification Compared with MRI in Women with Dense Breasts-a Multicenter Prospective Study

Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer

Diagnostic Evaluations of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mammary Duct Ectasia and Breast Cancer

Comparative Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Diagnosing and Treating Breast Cancer

Contrast-Enhanced Mammogram: A New Game-Changer in Breast Imaging. Indications with Case-Based Experience

Retrospective and comparative analysis of 99m Tc-Sestamibi breast specific gamma imaging versus mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of breast cancer in Chinese women

How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature

Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Retrospective and Comparative Analysis of 99Mtc-Sestamibi Breast Specific Gamma Imaging Versus Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Breast Cancer in Chinese Women

Head-to-head Comparison of Perfluorobutane Contrast-Enhanced US and Multiparametric MRI for Breast Cancer: a Prospective, Multicenter Study

Diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score for contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in breast masses: A Comparative Study

Diagnostic performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography vs. Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Clinical study of digital mammography, contrast-enhanced MRI as well as their combination in the diagnosis of breast cancer

Comparative Study of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and MRI Used in Breast Intraductal Lesions

Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study

Comparison of Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced MRI and Non‐Mono‐Exponential Model‐Based Diffusion‐Weighted Imaging for the Prediction of Prognostic Biomarkers and Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer Based on Radiomics

The diagnostic performance of automated versus handheld breast ultrasound and mammography in symptomatic outpatient women: a multicenter, cross-sectional study in China

Sensitivity of Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI vs X-ray Mammography Based on Cancer Histology, Tumor Grading, Receptor Status, and Molecular Subtype: A Supplemental Analysis of 2 Large Phase III Studies