Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis

European Radiology

Volumn 24, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 2394-2403

  Cheung, Yun Chung ^a,b   Lin, Yu Ching ^a   Wan, Yung Liang ^a   Yeow, Kee Min ^a   Huang, Pei Chin ^a   Lo, Yung Feng ^a   Tsai, Hsiu Pei ^a   Ueng, Shir Hwa ^a   Chang, Chee Jen ^a  

^a CHANG GUNG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^b CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Breast; Breast cancer diagnosis; Contrast enhanced subtracted mammography; Dual energy contrast enhanced spectral mammography; Mammography; Observer blind study

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC USE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; RADIOGRAPHY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST DISEASES; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84930239281     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
2. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK et al (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360
3. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR et al (1998) 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 209:511–518
4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital mammography versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783
5. Holland R, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH et al (1982) So-called interval cancers of the breast: pathologic and radiologic analysis of sixty-four cases. Cancer 49:2527–2533
6. Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O’Laoide R et al (1994) Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Clin Radiol 49:123–125
7. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182
8. Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649
9. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM et al (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 265:59–69
10. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C et al (2003) Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1675–1679
11. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A et al (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544
12. Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M et al (2009) Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 252:665–672
13. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS et al (2008) BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology 248:773–781
14. Heinig J, Witteler R, Schmitz R et al (2008) Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:573–578
15. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ et al (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high- risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626
16. Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228
17. Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 256:714–723
18. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850
19. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F et al (2005) Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 40:397–404
20. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W528–W537
21. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574
22. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V et al (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268
23. Su MY, Cheung YC, Fruehauf JP et al (2003) Correlation of dynamic contrast enhancement MRI parameters with microvessel density and VEGF for assessment of angiogenesis in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 18:467–477
24. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhiuse JH (2002) 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 225:165–175
25. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F et al (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 14:R94
26. Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308
27. Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A et al (2013) Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol 23:2087–2094
28. Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Ruppel P et al (2013) Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view mammography with two-view digital mammography. Eur Radiol 23:664–672
29. Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449
30. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78:112–121
31. Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA et al (2006) Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:426–430