Objectives
To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, ...multi-reader study.
Methods
One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.
Results
Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI.
Conclusions
This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.
Key Points
•
CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics
.
•
CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance
.
•
CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI
.
•
Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts
.
•
CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts
.
Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts ...face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method.
Key Points
•
The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript
This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and ...safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following
definite indications
for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed.
Possible indications
such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40–74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover,
inappropriate indications
include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered.
Teaching Points
• US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40.
• For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings.
• High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed.
• Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams.
• Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unilateral axillary lymphadenopathy is a frequent mild side effect of COVID-19 vaccination. European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) proposes ten recommendations to standardise its management and ...reduce unnecessary additional imaging and invasive procedures: (1) in patients with previous history of breast cancer, vaccination should be performed in the contralateral arm or in the thigh; (2) collect vaccination data for all patients referred to breast imaging services, including patients undergoing breast cancer staging and follow-up imaging examinations; (3) perform breast imaging examinations preferentially before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after the last vaccine dose; (4) in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, apply standard imaging protocols regardless of vaccination status; (5) in any case of symptomatic or imaging-detected axillary lymphadenopathy before vaccination or at least 12 weeks after, examine with appropriate imaging the contralateral axilla and both breasts to exclude malignancy; (6) in case of axillary lymphadenopathy contralateral to the vaccination side, perform standard work-up; (7) in patients without breast cancer history and no suspicious breast imaging findings, lymphadenopathy only ipsilateral to the vaccination side within 12 weeks after vaccination can be considered benign or probably-benign, depending on clinical context; (8) in patients without breast cancer history, post-vaccination lymphadenopathy coupled with suspicious breast finding requires standard work-up, including biopsy when appropriate; (9) in patients with breast cancer history, interpret and manage post-vaccination lymphadenopathy considering the timeframe from vaccination and overall nodal metastatic risk; (10) complex or unclear cases should be managed by the multidisciplinary team.
Abstract Purpose The goal of this prospective study was to evaluate the possible diagnostic benefits of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) over conventional mammography. Materials and ...methods Our analysis included data from 70 patients with a total of 80 lesions (30 malignant and 50 benign). A series of contrast-enhanced images was acquired from each patient using a modified imaging system (GE Senographe 2000D with copper filter) suitable for displaying iodine contrast medium. After the mask image had been taken, the contrast medium was administered using a dosage of 1 ml/kg body weight at a rate of 4 ml/s. Three contrast-enhanced images in the cranio-caudal projection plane were then captured at intervals of 60 s. The mask image was logarithmically subtracted from the contrast-enhanced images. We performed a ROC analysis of diagnostic quality with three readers. Results On average, 5.66 more malignant lesions were detected with the addition of digital dynamic contrast mammography versus conventional mammography alone. The sensitivity was increased from an average of 0.43 in conventional mammography to an average of 0.62 with contrast mammography. Even in dense breast parenchyma, the sensitivity increased from an average of 0.35–0.59. In the multi-reader-ROC analyses of all readers, the differences in the AUC with p = 0.02 (BI-RADS) proved statistically significant in all cases. The Wilcoxon test showed that Readers I and II primarily used the CEDM to upgrade enhancing lesions to a higher BI-RADS category or a higher probability of malignancy. These two readers benefited most from the CEDM in the ROC analysis. Conclusion Overall, we conclude that the addition of dynamic digital subtraction mammography to conventional mammography can significantly improve diagnostic quality. The increased sensitivity is particularly pronounced in the case of dense breast tissue.
To (a) develop a preconditioned water-fat-silicone total field inversion (wfsTFI) algorithm that directly estimates the susceptibility map from complex multi-echo data in the breast in the presence ...of silicone and to (b) evaluate the performance of wfsTFI for breast quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in silico and in vivo in comparison with formerly proposed methods.
Numerical simulations and in vivo multi-echo gradient echo breast measurements were performed to compare wfsTFI to a previously proposed field map-based linear total field inversion algorithm (lTFI) with and without the consideration of the chemical shift of silicone in the field map estimation step. Specifically, a simulation based on an in vivo scan and data from five patients were included in the analysis.
In the simulation, wfsTFI is able to significantly decrease the normalized root mean square error from lTFI without (4.46) and with (1.77) the consideration of the chemical shift of silicone to 0.68. Both the in silico and in vivo wfsTFI susceptibility maps show reduced shadowing artifacts in local tissue adjacent to silicone, reduced streaking artifacts and no erroneous single voxels of diamagnetic susceptibility in proximity to silicone.
The proposed wfsTFI method can automatically distinguish between subjects with and without silicone. Furthermore wfsTFI accounts for the presence of silicone in the QSM dipole inversion and allows for the robust estimation of susceptibility in proximity to silicone breast implants and hence allows the visualization of structures that would otherwise be dominated by artifacts on susceptibility maps.
Purpose
To report on 10 years of high-risk service screening with annual MRI in the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC).
Methods
A cohort of 4,573 high-risk, ...previously unaffected women (954 BRCA1 carriers, 598 BRCA2 carriers, 3021 BRCA1/2 non-carriers) participating in the GC-HBOC surveillance program was prospectively followed. Screening outcomes for 14,142 screening rounds with MRI between 2006 and 2015 were analyzed and stratified by risk group, type of screening round, and age.
Results
A total of 221 primary breast cancers (185 invasive, 36 in situ) were diagnosed within 12 months of an annual screening round with MRI. Of all cancers, 84.5% (174/206, 15 unknown) were stage 0 or I. In BRCA1 carriers, 16.9% (10/59, 5 unknown) of all incident cancers (screen-detected and interval cancers combined) and in BRCA2 carriers 12.5% (3/24, 4 unknown) were stage IIA or higher, compared to only 4.8% (2/42, 2 unknown) in high-risk BRCA1/2 non-carriers. Program sensitivity was 89.6% (95% CI 84.9–93.0) with no significant differences in sensitivity between risk groups or by age. Specificity was significantly lower in the first screening round (84.6%, 95% CI 83.6–85.7) than in subsequent screening rounds (91.1%, 95% CI 90.6–91.7),
p
< 0.001. Cancer detection rates (CDRs) and as a result positive predictive values were strongly dependent on type of screening round, risk group and patient age. CDRs ranged from 43.5‰ (95% CI 29.8–62.9) for the first screening round in BRCA2 carriers to 2.9‰ (95% CI 1.3–6.3) for subsequent screening rounds in high-risk non-carriers in the age group 30 to 39 years.
Conclusions
High-risk screening with MRI was successfully implemented in the GC-HBOC with high sensitivity and specificity. Risk prediction and inclusion criteria in high-risk non-carriers need to be adjusted to improve CDRs and thus screening efficacy in these patients.
To determine the diagnostic performance of susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (SWMR) for the detection of pineal gland calcifications (PGC) compared to conventional magnetic resonance ...imaging (MRI) sequences, using computed tomography (CT) as a reference standard.
384 patients who received a 1.5 Tesla MRI scan including SWMR sequences and a CT scan of the brain between January 2014 and October 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. 346 patients were included in the analysis, of which 214 showed PGC on CT scans. To assess correlation between imaging modalities, the maximum calcification diameter was used. Sensitivity and specificity and intra- and interobserver reliability were calculated for SWMR and conventional MRI sequences.
SWMR reached a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI: 91%-97%) and a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 91%-99%) for the detection of PGC, whereas conventional MRI achieved a sensitivity of 43% (95% CI: 36%-50%) and a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 91%-99%). Detection rates for calcifications in SWMR and conventional MRI differed significantly (95% versus 43%, p<0.001). Diameter measurements between SWMR and CT showed a close correlation (R2 = 0.85, p<0.001) with a slight but not significant overestimation of size (SWMR: 6.5 mm ± 2.5; CT: 5.9 mm ± 2.4, p = 0.02). Interobserver-agreement for diameter measurements was excellent on SWMR (ICC = 0.984, p < 0.0001).
Combining SWMR magnitude and phase information enables the accurate detection of PGC and offers a better diagnostic performance than conventional MRI with CT as a reference standard.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
This article summarises the information to be offered to women about mammography. After a delineation of the aim of early diagnosis of breast cancer, the difference between screening mammography and ...diagnostic mammography is explained. The need to bring images and reports from the previous mammogram (and from other recent breast imaging examinations) is highlighted. Mammography technique and procedure are described with particular attention to discomfort and pain experienced by a small number of women who undergo the test. Information is given on the recall during a screening programme and on the request for further work-up after a diagnostic mammography. The logic of the mammography report and of classification systems such as R1-R5 and BI-RADS is illustrated, and brief but clear information is given about the diagnostic performance of the test, with particular reference to interval cancers, i.e., those cancers that are missed at screening mammography. Moreover, the breast cancer risk due to radiation exposure from mammography is compared to the reduction in mortality obtained with the test, and the concept of overdiagnosis is presented with a reliable estimation of its extent. Information about new mammographic technologies (tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography) is also given. Finally, frequently asked questions are answered.
Key Points
•
Direct digital mammography should be preferred to film-screen or phosphor plates
.
•
Screening (in asymptomatic women) should be distinguished from diagnosis (in symptomatic women)
.
•
A breast symptom has to be considered even after a negative mammogram
.
•
Digital breast tomosynthesis increases cancer detection and decreases the recall rate
.
•
Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography can help in cancer detection and lesion characterisation
.
PDF
