Top

memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology

Published in:

Open Access 01-09-2017 | short review

New diagnostic tools for breast cancer

Authors: Pascal A. T. Baltzer, M.D., Panagiotis Kapetas, Maria Adele Marino, M.D., Paola Clauser, M.D.

Published in: memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology | Issue 3/2017

Summary

Imaging plays a major role in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of breast cancer. Findings that require further assessment will be detected both at screening and curative mammography. Most findings that are further worked up tend to yield benign diagnoses. Consequently, there is an ongoing search for new tools to reduce recalls and unnecessary biopsies while maintaining or improving cancer detection rates. The clinically most promising methods in this respect are described and discussed in this review.

Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Álvarez M, Azavedo E, Baarslag HJ, Balleyguier C, et al. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. Eur Radiol. 2016; doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4612-z.PubMedCentral

Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M, Ng KH, Pietrzyk M, Brennan PC. Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol. 2013;68:e225–36. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.01.007.CrossRefPubMed

Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40:014301. doi:10.1118/1.4770279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24:93–9. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

Skaane P. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2017;24:32–41. doi:10.1007/s12282-016-0699-y.CrossRefPubMed

Houssami N. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12:377–9. doi:10.1586/17434440.2015.1028362.CrossRefPubMed

Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:141–50. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56. doi:10.1148/radiol.12121373.CrossRefPubMed

Carbonaro LA, Di Leo G, Clauser P, Trimboli RM, Verardi N, Fedeli MP, et al. Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:808–14. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:299–308. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11520.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Clauser P, Nagl G, Helbich TH, Pinker-Domenig K, Weber M, Kapetas P, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:2161–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.004.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Nelson JS, Wells JR, Baker JA, Samei E. How does c‑view image quality compare with conventional 2D FFDM? Med Phys. 2016;43:2538. doi:10.1118/1.4947293.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271:655–63. doi:10.1148/radiol.13131391.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fantò C, Ostillio L, et al. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1105–13. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A, Paquelet JR, Bezzon E, Chersevani R, et al. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2087–94. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2831-0.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2015; doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3.

17.

McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast Tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:737–43. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Jochelson M. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52:609–16. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2013.12.004.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, Signori A, Sormani MP, Valdora F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13–9. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Fallenberg EM, Schmitzberger FF, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2016; doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4650-6.PubMed

21.

Hobbs MM, Taylor DB, Buzynski S, Peake RE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59:300–5. doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12296.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kapetas P, Pinker-Domenig K, Woitek R, Clauser P, Bernathova M, Spick C, et al. Clinical application of acoustic radiation force impulse imaging with virtual touch IQ in breast ultrasound: diagnostic performance and reproducibility of a new technique. Acta Radiol. 1987;2016 doi:10.1177/0284185116641347.

23.

Golatta M, Schweitzer-Martin M, Harcos A, Schott S, Gomez C, Stieber A, et al. Evaluation of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification, a new shear wave velocity imaging method, for breast lesion assessment by ultrasound. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:960262. doi:10.1155/2014/960262.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Yao M‑H, Wu R, Xu G, Zhao L‑X, Liu H, Pu H, et al. A novel two-dimensional quantitative shear wave elastography to make differential diagnosis of breast lesions: Comprehensive evaluation and influencing factors. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2016;64:223–33. doi:10.3233/CH-16188.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kapetas P, Woitek R, Clauser P, Marino MA, Vigano S, Pinker K. et al. Can acoustic radiation force impulse imaging aid in the differentiation of benign from malignant breast lesions? Annual meeting and assembly. Chicago: Radiological Society of North America; 2016.

26.

Bennani-Baiti B, Baltzer PA. MR imaging for diagnosis of malignancy in mammographic Microcalcifications: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Radiology. 2016; doi:10.1148/radiol.2016161106.PubMed

27.

Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging in non-calcified equivocal breast findings: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2016;11:e0160346. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160346.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Baltzer PAT, Kaiser WA, Dietzel M. Lesion type and reader experience affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI: a multiple reader ROC study. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:86–91. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.023.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Baltzer PAT, Dietzel M, Kaiser WA. A simple and robust classification tree for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in MR-mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2051–60. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2804-3.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Marino MA, Clauser P, Woitek R, Wengert GJ, Kapetas P, Bernathova M, et al. A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience? Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2529–37. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4075-7.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Woitek R, Spick C, Schernthaner M, Rudas M, Kapetas P, Bernathova M, et al. A simple classification system (the Tree flowchart) for breast MRI can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in MRI-only lesions. Eur Radiol. 2017; doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4755-6.

32.

Baltzer PAT, Renz DM, Herrmann K‑H, Dietzel M, Krumbein I, Gajda M, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR mammography (MRM): clinical comparison of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) diffusion techniques. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1612–20. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1326-5.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Baltzer A, Dietzel M, Kaiser CG, Baltzer PA. Combined reading of contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging by using a simple sum score. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:884–91. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3886-x.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Spick C, Pinker-Domenig K, Rudas M, Helbich TH, Baltzer PA. MRI-only lesions: application of diffusion-weighted imaging obviates unnecessary MR-guided breast biopsies. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1204–10. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3153-6.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W, Spick C, Bagó-Horváth Z, Weber M, et al. Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for the differentiation of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Invest Radiol. 2015;50:95–100. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000104.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11:102–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Abramson RG, Burton KR, Yu J‑PJ, Scalzetti EM, Yankeelov TE, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development. Acad Radiol. 2015;22:25–32. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Spick C, Bickel H, Pinker K, Bernathova M, Kapetas P, Woitek R, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI of breast lesions: a prospective clinical investigation of the quantitative imaging biomarker characteristics of reproducibility, repeatability, and diagnostic accuracy. NMR Biomed. 2016; doi:10.1002/nbm.3596.PubMed

Title: New diagnostic tools for breast cancer
Authors: Pascal A. T. Baltzer, M.D.
Panagiotis Kapetas
Maria Adele Marino, M.D.
Paola Clauser, M.D.
Publication date: 01-09-2017
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Published in: memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 1865-5041
Electronic ISSN: 1865-5076
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12254-017-0341-5

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Novel therapeutics in supportive cancer treatment

Prognostic significance of aberrant expression of CD markers in acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Development of chemotherapeutics in oncology: is there anything new?

Activity of panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in advanced, proteasome inhibitor refractory multiple myeloma

What’s new in chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer?

An Austrian view of the 2017 consensus for the treatment of early breast cancer

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer