Purpose: To compare the reproducibility between contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the postsurgical pathologic examination. In addition, the applicability of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of MRI to CEDM was evaluated for mass lesions.
Methods: A total of 62 patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this study, for a total of 67 lesions. Fifty-nine patients underwent both methods. The reproducibility between MRI vs CEDM and the reference standard (postoperative pathology) was assessed by considering the lesion and breast size as pivotal variables. Reproducibility was evaluated by computing the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Bland-Altman plots were used to depict the observed pattern of agreement as well as to estimate the associated bias. Furthermore, the pattern of agreement between the investigated methods with regard to the breast lesion characterization (i.e. mass/nonmass; shape; margins; internal enhanced characteristics) was assessed by computing the Cohen kappa and its 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results: The reproducibility between MRI and the reference standard and between CEDM and the reference standard showed substantial agreement, with a CCC value of 0.956 (95% CI, 0.931-0.972) and 0.950 (95% CI, 0.920-0.969), respectively. By looking at the Bland-Altman analysis, bias values of 2.344 and 1.875 mm were observed for MRI and CEDM vs reference evaluation, respectively. The agreement between MRI and CEDM is substantial with a CCC value of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.949-0.981). The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias values of -0.469 mm when comparing CEDM vs MRI. Following the Landis and Koch classification criteria, moderate agreement was observed between the two methods in describing BI-RADS descriptors of mass lesions.
Conclusion: CEDM is able to measure and describe tumor masses comparably to MRI and can be used for surgical planning.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03008916211050124 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Contrast Enhancement in Breast Cancer: Magnetic Resonance vs. Mammography: A 10-Year Systematic Review.
Diagnostics (Basel)
October 2024
SCDU Radiology, "Maggiore della Carità" Hospital, University of Eastern Piedmont, 28100 Novara, Italy.
Purpose: Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance (CEMR) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) are important diagnostic tools to evaluate breast cancer patients, and both are objects of interest in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to select publications from the last ten years in order to evaluate the literature contributions related to the frequency of contrast agents used, administration techniques and the presence of adverse reactions.
Methods: We have selected, according to the PRISMA statement, publications reviewed on Pub Med in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022.
Brief communication: The current status of contrast-enhanced mammography in breast imaging.
Clin Imaging
September 2024
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, United States of America. Electronic address:
Improvising and developing state of the art techniques for breast cancer detection have always been an area of great interest in the field of imaging. Adding intravenous contrast to any imaging study, is well-known to increase the sensitivity and specificity of detection of a pathological process, especially in the setting of neoplasia secondary to tumor neoangiogenesis. Contrast enhanced MRI is known to be highly sensitive breast cancer screening tool till date, however, has been limited by long scan times, claustrophobia experienced by some women and high false positive findings.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFState-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.
Br J Radiol
March 2024
Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, United States.
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technology with promise for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and procedural guidance. However, best uses of CEM in comparison with other breast imaging modalities such as tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and MRI remain inconclusive in many clinical settings. This review article summarizes recent peer-reviewed literature, emphasizing retrospective reviews, prospective clinical trials, and meta-analyses published from 2020 to 2023.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFContrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Diagnostics (Basel)
August 2022
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Methods: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms "breast cancer", "preoperative staging", "contrast-enhanced mammography", "contrast-enhanced spectral mammography", "contrast enhanced digital mammography", "contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging" "CEM", "CESM", "CEDM", and "CE-MRI".
Impact of background parenchymal enhancement levels on the diagnosis of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in evaluations of breast cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
Breast Cancer
July 2022
Department of Breast Surgery and Oncology, Shinko Hospital, 1-4-47, Wakinohama, Chuo, Kobe, 651-0072, Japan.
Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and breast MRI in evaluations of breast cancer, with a focus on the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) levels.
Methods: The present study included women who underwent CEDM and breast MRI to evaluate the disease extent of breast cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. Readers judged BPE levels (minimal-mild or moderate-marked) on CEDM, and were asked to assign findings suggesting malignancy using the following criteria: (1) enhancement other than BPE and (2) BI-RADS 4/5 calcifications without enhancement.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!