Dataset Information

Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced MRI versus the combination of unenhanced MRI and digital breast tomosynthesis.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To compare the sensitivity for breast cancer (BC) and BC size estimation of preoperative contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) versus combined unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (UMRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). PATIENTS AND METHODS:We retrospectively included 56 women who underwent DBT and preoperative 1.5 T CEMRI between January 2016-February 2017. Three readers with 2-10 years of experience in CEMRI and DBT, blinded to pathology, independently reviewed CEMRI (diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging, pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted imaging) and a combination of UMRI (DWI and pre-contrast T1-weighted imaging) and DBT. We calculated per-lesion sensitivity of CEMRI and UMRI + DBT, and the agreement between CEMRI, UMRI and DBT versus pathology in assessing cancer size (Bland-Altman analysis). Logistic regression was performed to assess features predictive of cancer missing. RESULTS:We included 70 lesions (64% invasive BC, 36% ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive BC with in situ component). UMRI + DBT showed lower sensitivity (86-89%) than CEMRI (94-100%), with a significant difference for the most experienced reader only (p = 0.008). False-positives were fewer with UMRI + DBT (4-5) than with CEMRI (18-25), regardless of the reader (p = 0.001-0.005). For lesion size, UMRI showed closer limits of agreement with pathology than CEMRI or DBT. Cancer size ?1 cm was the only independent predictor for cancer missing for both imaging strategies (Odds ratio 8.62 for CEMRI and 19.16 for UMRI + DBT). CONCLUSIONS:UMRI + DBT showed comparable sensitivity and less false-positives than CEMRI in the preoperative assessment of BC. UMRI was the most accurate tool to assess cancer size.

SUBMITTER: Girometti R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7375544 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced MRI versus the combination of unenhanced MRI and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Girometti Rossano R Marconi Valentina V Linda Anna A Di Mico Luisa L Bondini Federica F Zuiani Chiara C Sardanelli Francesco F

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20191204

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the sensitivity for breast cancer (BC) and BC size estimation of preoperative contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) versus combined unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (UMRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We retrospectively included 56 women who underwent DBT and preoperative 1.5 T CEMRI between January 2016-February 2017. Three readers with 2-10 years of experience in CEMRI and DBT, blinded to pathology, independe ...[more]

PMID: 31838292

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography versus digital mammography alone.Materials and methodsInstitutional review board approval was obtained at each accruing institution. Participating women gave written informed consent. Mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal digital mammographic and tomosynthesis images of both breasts were obtained from 1192 subjects. Two enriched reader studies were performed to compare digital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone. Study 1 comprised 312 cases (48 cancer cases) with images read by 12 radiologists; study 2, 312 cases (51 cancer cases) with 15 radiologists. Study 1 readers recorded only that an abnormality requiring recall was present; study 2 readers had additional training and recorded both lesion type and location. Diagnostic accuracy was compared with receiver operating characteristic analysis. Recall rates of noncancer cases, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values determined by analyzing Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scores were compared for the two methods.ResultsDiagnostic accuracy for combined tomosynthesis and digital mammography was superior to that of digital mammography alone. Average difference in area under the curve in study 1 was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7%, 10.8%; P < .001) and in study 2 was 6.8% (95% CI: 4.1%, 9.5%; P < .001). All 27 radiologists increased diagnostic accuracy with addition of tomosynthesis. Recall rates for noncancer cases for all readers significantly decreased with addition of tomosynthesis (range, 6%-67%; P < .001 for 25 readers, P < .03 for all readers). Increased sensitivity was largest for invasive cancers: 15% and 22% in studies 1 and 2 versus 3% for in situ cancers in both studies.ConclusionAddition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography offers the dual benefit of significantly increased diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduced recall rates for noncancer cases.Supplemental materialhttp://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120674/-/DC1.

Project description:BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; P < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate (P = .52 and P = .98, respectively), positive predictive value (P = .78), or sensitivity (P = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.

Project description:Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI.PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast.Study typeProspective, single center.PopulationWomen with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included.Field strength/sequence1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype.AssessmentThree, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard.Statistical testLesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics.ResultsIncluded were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%, P = 0.514).Data conclusionL-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.

Project description:Previously, the authors developed a dual-energy (DE) acquisition technique for a photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) imaging system. Low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) images are acquired in a single scan by covering alternate slits of a multislit prepatient collimator with Sn and Cu, respectively. A theoretical model was used to optimize the technique. In this article, an experimental validation of this technique is presented.Experiments were performed on a prototype DBT system. LE and HE projection images were acquired sequentially; either a Sn or a Cu filter was positioned in the filter holder at the exit window of the x-ray tube. Sn filters from 0.113 to 0.242 mm thick and Cu filters from 0.103 to 0.267 mm were used. The images were acquired with a W target at 49 kV. Tomographic images, hereafter referred to as DBT images, were reconstructed using a shift-and-add algorithm. DE-DBT images were obtained by weighted logarithmic subtraction of the LE and HE images. Weighting factors w(t) that optimally cancel breast tissues with two different glandularities were assessed for 20-80 mm thick phantoms with 0%, 50%, and 100% glandularity. The mean and standard deviation in the per-pixel signal intensity (SI) were calculated in the DBT images. These data were used to calculate signal-difference-to-noise ratios (SDNRs) between iodine enhanced and nonenhanced polymethyl methacrylate backgrounds. To illustrate the feasibility of the technique, DE-DBT images of a structured phantom containing iodine disks were assessed. The experimental results were compared against the values obtained from a theoretical model of the imaging system.The average difference between theoretical and experimental w(t) was found to range from 8% to 21%. Experimental w(t) values increase with phantom thickness and Cu thickness, depend somewhat on Sn thickness, and vary more as a function of breast composition in thick breasts than in thin breasts. Theoretical and experimental mean and standard deviation in the per-pixel SI differ by -7% to 10% and by -3% to 4%. Theoretical and experimental SDNR values differ, on average, by 1.5%. Iodine concentrations can be predicted from SDNR; the relationship can be accurately fit to a quadratic. In the images of the structured phantom, iodine concentrations of 1 mg/cm2 and larger are discernable.The strong agreement between experimental and theoretical results in this article indicates that the authors' computer model is accurate.

Project description:Dual-energy (DE) iodine contrast-enhanced x-ray imaging of the breast has been shown to identify cancers that would otherwise be mammographically occult. In this article, theoretical modeling was performed to obtain optimally enhanced iodine images for a photon-counting digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) system using a DE acquisition technique.In the system examined, the breast is scanned with a multislit prepatient collimator aligned with a multidetector camera. Each detector collects a projection image at a unique angle during the scan. Low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) projection images are acquired simultaneously in a single scan by covering alternate collimator slits with Sn and Cu filters, respectively. Sn filters ranging from 0.08 to 0.22 mm thickness and Cu filters from 0.11 to 0.27 mm thickness were investigated. A tube voltage of 49 kV was selected. Tomographic images, hereafter referred to as DBT images, were reconstructed using a shift-and-add algorithm. Iodine-enhanced DBT images were acquired by performing a weighted logarithmic subtraction of the HE and LE DBT images, The DE technique was evaluated for 20-80 mm thick breasts. Weighting factors, w(t) that optimally cancel breast tissue were computed. Signal-difference-to-noise ratios (SDNRs) between iodine-enhanced and nonenhanced breast tissue normalized to the square root of the mean glandular dose (MGD) were computed as a function of the fraction of the MGD allocated to the HE images. Peak SDNR/ mean square root of MGD and optimal dose allocations were identified. SDNR/ mean square root of MGD and dose allocations were computed for several practical feasible system configurations (i.e., determined by the number of collimator slits covered by Sn and Cu). A practicalsystem configuration an d Sn-Cu filterpair that accounts for the trade-off between SDNR, tube-output, and MGD were selected.w(t) depends on the Sn-Cu filter combination used, as well as on the breast thickness; to optimally cancel 0% with 50% glandular breast tissue, w(t) values were found to range from 0.46 to 0.72 for all breast thicknesses and Sn-Cu filter pairs studied. The optimal w(t) values needed to cancel all possible breast tissue glandularites vary by less than 1% for 20 mm thick breasts and 18% for 80 mm breasts. The system configuration where one collimator slit covered by Sn is alternated with two collimator slits covered by Cu delivers SDNR/ mean square root of MGD nearest to the peak value. A reasonable compromise is a 0.16 mm Sn-0.23 mm Cu filter pair, resulting in SDNR values between 1.64 and 0.61 and MGD between 0.70 and 0.53 mGy for 20-80 mm thick breasts at the maximum tube current.A DE acquisition technique for a photon-counting DBT imaging system has been developed and optimized.

Project description:ImportanceImproved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography.ObjectiveTo compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019.ExposuresAll women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity.ResultsAmong 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15).Conclusions and relevanceAmong women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Dataset Information

Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced MRI versus the combination of unenhanced MRI and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Publications

Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced MRI versus the combination of unenhanced MRI and digital breast tomosynthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets