Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study

Breast Cancer Research

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Dromain, Clarisse ^a   Thibault, Fabienne ^b   Diekmann, Felix ^c   Fallenberg, Eva M ^c   Jong, Roberta A ^d   Koomen, Marcia ^e   Hendrick, R Edward ^f   Tardivon, Anne ^b   Toledano, Alicia ^g  

^a INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

^b INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^c CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^d SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^g Statistic Statistics Collaborative   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DUAL ENERGY CONTRAST ENHANCED DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; URTICARIA; BREAST TUMOR; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84862229109     PISSN: 14655411     EISSN: 1465542X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/bcr3210     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002, 137:347-360.
2. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, Key CR, Linver MN. 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 1998, 209:511-518.
3. Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J. 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 2002, 225:165-175. 10.1148/radiol.2251011667, 12355001.
4. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancer missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992, 184:613-617.
5. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D'Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M, . Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital mammography versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1773-1783. 10.1056/NEJMoa052911, 16169887, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group.
6. Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S, Huang SY, Beckett LA, Monsky WL, Boone JM. Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010, 256:714-723. 10.1148/radiol.10092311, 2923727, 20720067.
7. Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology 2010, 257:246-253. 10.1148/radiol.10100570, 20736332.
8. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: BI-RADS 2003, Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 4, American College of Radiology.
9. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 1. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007, 244:356-378. 10.1148/radiol.2442051620, 17641361.
10. Lee JM, McMahon PM, Kong CY, Kopans DB, Ryan PD, Ozanne EM, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS. Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers. Radiology 2010, 254:793-800. 10.1148/radiol.09091086, 2826703, 20177093.
11. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003, 229:261-268. 10.1148/radiol.2291021276, 12888621.
12. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, Plewes DB. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003, 228:842-850. 10.1148/radiol.2283020961, 12881585.
13. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F, Muller S, Hamm B, Bick U. Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 2005, 40:397-404. 10.1097/01.rli.0000167421.83203.4e, 15973130.
14. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu MC, Rochard F, Opolon P, Sigal R. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:W528-W537.
15. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, Balleyguier C. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 2011, 21:565-574. 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y, 20839001.
16. Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Rico D, Muller S, Rick A, Jeunehomme F. Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys 2002, 29:2419-2426. 10.1118/1.1510128, 12408316.
17. Puong S, Bouchevreau X, Patoureaux F, Iordache R, Muller S. Dual-energy contrast enhanced digital mammography using a new approach for breast tissue canceling. Proceedings of the Medical Imaging 2007 Conference: Physics of Medical Imaging 2007, 6510. SPIE, San Diego, Hsieh J, Flynn MJ.
18. Birch R, Marshall M. Computation of bremsstrahlung x-ray spectra and comparison with spectra measured with a Ge(Li) detector. Phys Med Biol 1979, 24:505-517. 10.1088/0031-9155/24/3/002, 461510.
19. Wu X, Barnes G, Tucker D. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology 1991, 179:144-148.
20. Boone JM. Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data. Medical Physics 2002, 29:869-875. 10.1118/1.1472499, 12033583.
21. Metz CE, Pan X. Proper binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 1999, 43:1-33. 10.1006/jmps.1998.1218, 10069933.
22. Pesce LL, Metz CE. Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of 'proper' binormal ROC Curves1. Acad Radiol 2007, 14:814-829. 10.1016/j.acra.2007.03.012, 2693394, 17574132.
23. MRMC 2.1 B 2, Brief Description, Kurt Rossmann's Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research. , http://www-radiology.uchicago.edu/krl/KRL_ROC/software_index6.htm#MRMC
24. Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: an anova approach with dependent observations. Commun. Statist Simula 1995, 24:285-308.
25. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992, 27:723-731. 10.1097/00004424-199209000-00015, 1399456.
26. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA. Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 1998, 5:591-602. 10.1016/S1076-6332(98)80294-8, 9750888.
27. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS. Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:1260-1273. 10.1016/j.acra.2004.08.009, 15561573.
28. Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 2005, 24:1579-1607. 10.1002/sim.2024, 15685718.
29. Hillis SL. Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 2005, 12:1534-1541. 10.1016/j.acra.2005.07.012, 1550352, 16321742.
30. Hillis SL. A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 2007, 26:596-619. 10.1002/sim.2532, 1769324, 16538699.
31. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 2008, 15:647-661. 10.1016/j.acra.2007.12.015, 2737462, 18423323.
32. Puong S. Multispectral breast imaging with contrast agent injection. Dissertation. 2008, Paris: Paris-Sud University.
33. ACR Manual on Contrast Media, Version 7, 2010. , http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/Contrast%20Manual/FullManual.pdf