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

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Creator
  • Thibault, Fabienne
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d’Ulm, Paris, 75005, France
  • Hendrick, R Edward
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora, CO 80045, USA
  • Koomen, Marcia
    • Affiliation: School of Medicine, Department of Radiology
  • Jong, Roberta A
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Center, 2075 Bayview Avenue, MG178 Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
  • Fallenberg, Eva M
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Radiology, University Hospital Charite, 1 charitéplatz, D - 10117 Berlin, Germany
  • Tardivon, Anne
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Institut Curie, 26 rue d’Ulm, Paris, 75005, France
  • Toledano, Alicia
    • Other Affiliation: Statistic, Statistics Collaborative, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, USA
  • Dromain, Clarisse
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Radiology, Institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulin, Villejuif, 94805 France
  • Diekmann, Felix
    • Other Affiliation: Department of Radiology, University Hospital Charite, 1 charitéplatz, D - 10117 Berlin, Germany
Abstract
  • Abstract Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) ± ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX ± US alone. Methods One hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX ± CEDM and MX ± US was evaluated with a Likert scale. Results The average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX ± US ± CEDM than for MX ± US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX ± CEDM than MX ± US in 80% of cases. Conclusions Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX ± US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX ± US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.
Date of publication
Identifier
  • doi:10.1186/bcr3210
  • 22697607
Resource type
  • Article
Rights statement
  • In Copyright
Rights holder
  • Clarisse Dromain et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
License
Journal title
  • Breast Cancer Research
Journal volume
  • 14
Journal issue
  • 3
Page start
  • R94
Language
  • English
Is the article or chapter peer-reviewed?
  • Yes
ISSN
  • 1465-5411
Bibliographic citation
  • Breast Cancer Research. 2012 Jun 14;14(3):R94
Access
  • Open Access
Publisher
  • BioMed Central Ltd
Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items