Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2014

01-10-2014 | Breast

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

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

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To analyse the accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in dense breasts in comparison with contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography (CESM) and conventional mammography (Mx).

Materials and methods

CESM cases of dense breasts with histological proof were evaluated in the present study. Four radiologists with varying experience in mammography interpretation blindly read Mx first, followed by CESM. The diagnostic profiles, consistency and learning curve were analysed statistically.

Results

One hundred lesions (28 benign and 72 breast malignancies) in 89 females were analysed. Use of CESM improved the cancer diagnosis by 21.2 % in sensitivity (71.5 % to 92.7 %), by 16.1 % in specificity (51.8 % to 67.9 %) and by 19.8 % in accuracy (65.9 % to 85.8 %) compared with Mx. The interobserver diagnostic consistency was markedly higher using CESM than using Mx alone (0.6235 vs. 0.3869 using the kappa ratio). The probability of a correct prediction was elevated from 80 % to 90 % after 75 consecutive case readings.

Conclusion

CESM provided additional information with consistent improvement of the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared to Mx alone. The prediction of the diagnosis could be improved by the interpretation of a significant number of cases in the presence of 6 % benign contrast enhancement in this study.

Key Points

DE-CESM improves the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared with mammography.
DE-CESM shows greater consistency than mammography alone by interobserver blind reading.
Diagnostic improvement of DE-CESM is independent of the mammographic reading experience.
Literature
1.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
2.
go back to reference 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 137:347–360PubMedCrossRef 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 137:347–360PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference 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 209:511–518PubMedCrossRef 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 209:511–518PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef 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 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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 49:2527–2533PubMedCrossRef 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 49:2527–2533PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O’Laoide R et al (1994) Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Clin Radiol 49:123–125PubMedCrossRef Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O’Laoide R et al (1994) Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Clin Radiol 49:123–125PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182PubMedCrossRef Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:177–182PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649PubMedCrossRef Kaplan SS (2001) Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 221:641–649PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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 265:59–69PubMedCrossRef 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 265:59–69PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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 180:1675–1679PubMedCrossRef 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 180:1675–1679PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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 44:539–544PubMedCrossRef 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 44:539–544PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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 252:665–672PubMedCrossRef 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 252:665–672PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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 248:773–781PubMedCrossRef 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 248:773–781PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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 32:573–578PubMedCrossRef 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 32:573–578PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ et al (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high- risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626PubMedCrossRef Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ et al (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high- risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228PubMedCrossRef Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850PubMedCrossRef Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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 40:397–404PubMedCrossRef 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 40:397–404PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference 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–W537PubMedCrossRef 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–W537PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574PubMedCrossRef Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V et al (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268PubMedCrossRef Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V et al (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference 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 18:467–477PubMedCrossRef 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 18:467–477PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference 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 225:165–175PubMedCrossRef 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 225:165–175PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference 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:R94PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef 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:R94PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308PubMedCrossRef Kopans DB (2014) Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:299–308PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference 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 23:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef 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 23:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference 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 23:664–672PubMedCrossRef 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 23:664–672PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449PubMedCrossRef Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance. Eur Radiol 23:2441–2449PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78:112–121PubMedCrossRef Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78:112–121PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference 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 186:426–430PubMedCrossRef 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 186:426–430PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis
Authors
Yun-Chung Cheung
Yu-Ching Lin
Yung-Liang Wan
Kee-Min Yeow
Pei-Chin Huang
Yung-Feng Lo
Hsiu-Pei Tsai
Shir-Hwa Ueng
Chee-Jen Chang
Publication date
01-10-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1

Other articles of this Issue 10/2014

European Radiology 10/2014 Go to the issue