Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: Feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma

Radiology

Volumn 266, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 743-751

  Jochelson, Maxine S ^a   Dershaw, D David ^a   Sung, Janice S ^a   Heerdt, Alexandra S ^a   Thornton, Cynthia ^a   Moskowitz, Chaya S ^a   Ferrara, Jessica ^a   Morris, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IOHEXOL;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILATERAL DUAL ENERGY CONTRAST AGENT ENHANCED DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; BREAST CARCINOMA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; IOHEXOL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOGRAPHY, DUAL-ENERGY SCANNED PROJECTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84874300631     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121084     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61(2): 69-90.
2. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133(11): 855-863.
3. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215(1): 267-279.
4. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292(11): 1317-1325.
5. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365(9473): 1769-1778.
6. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5): 427-437.
7. Van Ongeval C, Van Steen A, Vande Putte G, et al. Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography? Eur Radiol 2010;20(10): 2307-2314.
8. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a highrisk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(3): 619-626.
9. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(5): 1225-1228.
10. Esserman LJ, Kumar AS, Herrera AF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(28): 4603-4610.
11. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59(5): 290-302.
12. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrastenhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999;213(3): 881-888.
13. Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2003; 98(3): 468-473.
14. Mann RM, Veltman J, Barentsz JO, Wobbes T, Blickman JG, Boetes C. The value of MRI compared to mammography in the assessment of tumour extent in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34(2): 135-142.
15. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(13): 1295-1303.
16. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(19): 3248-3258.
17. Dromain C, Thibault F, Adler G. Dual energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: preliminary clinical results [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007; 326.
18. Diekmann F, Marx C, Jong R, Dromain C, Toledano AY, Bick U. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to mammography. Presented at the European Congress of Radiology, Vienna, Austria, May 9, 2007.
19. Moskowitz CS, Zabor EC, Jochelson M. Breast imaging: understanding how accuracy is measured when lesions are the unit of analysis. Breast J 2012;18(6): 557-563.
20. Obuchowski NA, Mazzone PJ, Dachman AH. Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection. Eur Radiol 2010; 20(3): 584-594.
21. Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics 2000;56(2): 345-351.
22. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2003.
23. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228(3): 842-850.
24. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, et al. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187(5):W528-W537.
25. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003;229(1): 261-268.
26. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, et al. Dual- energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 2011;21(3): 565-574.
27. Fisher ER, Gregorio R, Redmond C, Vellios F, Sommers SC, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol no. 4). I. Observations concerning the multicentricity of mammary cancer. Cancer 1975;35(1): 247-254.
28. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg 2009;209(2): 180-187.
29. Fisher B. Role of science in the treatment of breast cancer when tumor multicentricity is present. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103(17): 1292-1298.
30. Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E. MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet 2011;378(9805): 1804-1811.