RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of pre-operative contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in breast cancer patients with dense breasts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 232 histologically proven breast cancers in 200 women (mean age: 53.4 years ± 10.2) who underwent pre-surgical CEM imaging across two Asian institutions (Singapore and Taiwan). Majority (95.5%) of patients had dense breast tissue (BI-RADS category C or D). Surgical decision was recorded in a simulated blinded multi-disciplinary team setting on two separate scenarios: (i) pre-CEM setting with standard imaging, and clinical and histopathological results; and (ii) post-CEM setting with new imaging and corresponding histological findings from CEM. Alterations in surgical plan (if any) because of CEM imaging were recorded. Predictors CEM of patients who benefitted from surgical plan alterations were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: CEM resulted in altered surgical plans in 36 (18%) of 200 patients in this study. CEM discovered clinically significant larger tumor size or extent in 24 (12%) patients and additional tumors in 12 (6%) patients. CEM also detected additional benign/false-positive lesions in 13 (6.5%) of the 200 patients. Significant predictors of patients who benefitted from surgical alterations found on multivariate analysis were pre-CEM surgical decision for upfront breast conservation (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 1.9-32.1; p = 0.005), architectural distortion on mammograms (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.3-42.9; p = .022), and tumor size of ≥ 1.5 cm (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; p = .034). CONCLUSION: CEM is an effective imaging technique for pre-surgical planning for Asian breast cancer patients with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: ⢠CEM significantly altered surgical plans in 18% (nearly 1 in 5) of this Asian study cohort with dense breasts. ⢠Significant patient and imaging predictors for surgical plan alteration include (i) patients considered for upfront breast-conserving surgery; (ii) architectural distortion lesions; and (iii) tumor size of ≥ 1.5 cm. ⢠Additional false-positive/benign lesions detected through CEM were uncommon, affecting only 6.5% of the study cohort.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamografía , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mamografía/métodos , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Densidad de la Mama , Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Mama/cirugía , Mama/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To develop a risk predictor model in evaluation of tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion (AD) based on characteristics of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM). METHODS: Ninety-four AD lesions on CEDM in combination with tomosynthesis were retrospectively reviewed from 92 consecutive women (mean age, 52.4 years ± 7.9) with abnormal diagnostic or screening mammography. CEDM results were correlated with histology of ADs using cross-tabulation for statistical analysis. Predictors for risk of malignancy from CEDM characteristics (background parenchyma enhancement, degree of AD enhancement, enhancing morphology, size of enhancement, and enhancing spiculations) and patient's age were evaluated using logistic regression. We propose a sum score, termed AD score (ADS), for risk stratification and corresponding suggested BI-RADS category. RESULTS: Thirty-three of ninety-four (35.1%) of detected AD lesions were malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CEDM in evaluation of malignant AD are 100%, 42.6%, 48.5%, and 100%, respectively. Absence of AD enhancement on CEDM is highly indicative of no underlying malignancy. On multivariate analysis, the predictors on CEDM with statistical significance are (1) marked intensity of AD enhancement (OR, 22.6; 95%CI 3.1, 166.6; p = .002); and (2) presence of enhancing spiculations (OR, 9.1; 95%CI 2.2, 36.5; p = .002). A prediction model whose scores (ADS) given by ranking of OR of all predictors with AUC of 0.934 and Brier score of 0.0956 was developed. CONCLUSION: ADS-based lesion characterization on CEDM enables risk assessment of tomosynthesis-detected AD lesions. KEY POINTS: ⢠Architecture distortions presenting with marked enhancement intensity and presence of enhancing spiculations are highly associated with risk of malignancy. ⢠Absence of architecture distortion enhancement in minimal or mild background parenchyma enhancement on CEDM indicates low risk of breast malignancy (NPV = 100%).
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamografía , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Intensificación de Imagen Radiográfica , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y EspecificidadRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the kinetic patterns of benign and malignant breast lesions using contrast-enhanced digital mammogram (CEDM). METHODS: Women with suspicious breast lesions on mammography or ultrasound were enrolled. Single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) CEDM of an affected breast was acquired at 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 min after injection of contrast agent. Three readers visually and semi-quantitatively analyzed the enhancement of suspicious lesions. The kinetic pattern of each lesion was classified as persistent, plateau, or washout over two time intervals, 2-4 min and 2-10 min, by comparing the signal intensity at the first time interval with that at the second. RESULTS: There were 73 malignant and 75 benign lesions in 148 patients (mean age: 52 years). Benign and malignant breast lesions showed the highest signal intensity at 3 min and 2 min, respectively. Average areas under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for diagnostic accuracy based on lesion enhancement at different time points were 0.73 at 2 min, 0.72 at 3 min, 0.69 at 4 min, 0.67 at 7 min, and 0.64 at 10 min. Diagnostic performance was significantly better at 2, 3, and 4 min than at 7 and 10 min (all p < 0.05). A washout kinetic pattern was significantly associated with malignant lesions at 2-4 min and 2-10 min frames according to two of the three readers' interpretations (all p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Applications of optimal time intervals and kinetic patterns show promise in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions on CEDM.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Mamografía/métodos , Ultrasonografía Mamaria/métodos , Adulto , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Medios de Contraste/farmacocinética , Femenino , Humanos , Mamografía/normas , Mamografía/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Ultrasonografía Mamaria/normas , Ultrasonografía Mamaria/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and contrast-enhanced tomosynthesis (CET) to dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI (DCE-MRI) using a multireader-multicase study. METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consents were obtained. Total 185 patients (mean age 51.3) with BI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions were evaluated before biopsy with mammography, tomosynthesis, CEDM, CET and DCE-MRI. Mediolateral-oblique and cranio-caudal views of the target breast CEDM and CET were acquired at 2 and 4 min after contrast agent injection. A mediolateral-oblique view of the non-target breast was taken at 6 min. Each lesion was scored with forced BI-RADS categories by three readers. Each reader interpreted lesions in the following order: mammography, tomosynthesis, CEDM, CET, and DCE-MRI during a single reading session. RESULTS: Histology showed 81 cancers and 144 benign lesions in the study. Of the 81 malignant lesions, 44% (36/81) were invasive and 56% (45/81) were non-invasive. Areas under the ROC curve, averaged for the 3 readers, were as follows: 0.897 for DCE-MRI, 0.892 for CET, 0.878 for CEDM, 0.784 for tomosynthesis and 0.740 for mammography. Significant differences in AUC were found between the group of contrast enhanced modalities (CEDM, CET, DCE-MRI) and the unenhanced modalities (all p<0.05). No significant differences were found in AUC between DCE-MRI, CET and CEDM (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: CET and CEDM may be considered as an alternative modality to MRI for following up women with abnormal mammography. All three contrast modalities were superior in accuracy to conventional digital mammography with or without tomosynthesis.