Performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre
Introduction To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low‐energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning. Methods...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 2024-03, Vol.68 (2), p.141-149 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 149 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 141 |
| container_title | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology |
| container_volume | 68 |
| creator | Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret Varma, Nisha Lan Cheong Wah, David Chew, Renny Botha, Tanita Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan Paiva, Joseph |
| description | Introduction
To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low‐energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning.
Methods
Biopsy proven breast cancer patients who underwent CEM preoperatively between January 2021 and January 2023 were included in this study. CEM and LEM images were independently reviewed by at least two blinded readers. Lesion location, number, size (maximal diameter) and extension across the midline and/or nipple invasion were recorded. Tumour number and size estimated on imaging were compared with final operative histology, which served as the gold standard.
Results
Forty‐nine patients (48 females and 1 male) and 50 cases (one patient had bilateral breast lesions) were included in the analysis. Median patient age was 60 (IQR 51, 69). CEM had significantly higher lesion detection rate compared with LEM, with sensitivities of 78% for LEM and 92% for CEM for the index tumour and 15% for LEM and 100% for CEM for multicentric and multifocal cancer. We found no statistically significant difference in median tumour size measurements on CEM and final surgical specimen (P value = 0.97); however, a significant difference was identified in the tumour size measured on LEM and surgical specimen (P value |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1754-9485.13616 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2906178038</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2906178038</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-a7f0e1e47367e8751e57141497eef79929d694effbf48edeb9184c414ad2ecac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQhyMEoqVw5oYsceHAtvHGjmNuq6oFpEogBOfI64y3rvwn2ElhOfUReDYegSdhkpQ9cCGXJJ7P34z9K4rntDyl-JxRwdlKsoaf0qqm9YPi-LDy8PAtxFHxJOebsqwpZfJxcVQ1lNVlw4-LXx8hmZi8ChpINETHMCSVh993PyFcT6sd8cr7uEuqv94TZEkHA-jBhh3xoxusiVo5okK3_GpAg9VkmwA9RE-ONJfhVrlRzRuH0ccxkWx_wOu5Zn3vrMZiDHlukse0s5MYR1M78Gh9Qy5UcnsC33tIFqaJbSCKDJAGq9KezK3hafHIKJfh2f37pPhyefH5_N3q6sPb9-ebq5Wu1rxeKWFKoMBEVQtoBKfABWV4PwLACCnXsqslA2O2hjXQwVbShmkEVLcGrXR1UrxavH2KX0fIQ-tt1uCcChDH3K4l3rdoyqpB9OU_6A0eP-B0SEmObWXDkTpbKJ1izglM2yfr8WAtLdsp7nYKtJ3Cbee4cceLe--49dAd-L_5IsAX4Jt1sP-fr9182iziP-Qtu3Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2995141985</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret ; Varma, Nisha ; Lan Cheong Wah, David ; Chew, Renny ; Botha, Tanita ; Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan ; Paiva, Joseph</creator><creatorcontrib>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret ; Varma, Nisha ; Lan Cheong Wah, David ; Chew, Renny ; Botha, Tanita ; Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan ; Paiva, Joseph</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low‐energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning.
Methods
Biopsy proven breast cancer patients who underwent CEM preoperatively between January 2021 and January 2023 were included in this study. CEM and LEM images were independently reviewed by at least two blinded readers. Lesion location, number, size (maximal diameter) and extension across the midline and/or nipple invasion were recorded. Tumour number and size estimated on imaging were compared with final operative histology, which served as the gold standard.
Results
Forty‐nine patients (48 females and 1 male) and 50 cases (one patient had bilateral breast lesions) were included in the analysis. Median patient age was 60 (IQR 51, 69). CEM had significantly higher lesion detection rate compared with LEM, with sensitivities of 78% for LEM and 92% for CEM for the index tumour and 15% for LEM and 100% for CEM for multicentric and multifocal cancer. We found no statistically significant difference in median tumour size measurements on CEM and final surgical specimen (P value = 0.97); however, a significant difference was identified in the tumour size measured on LEM and surgical specimen (P value < 0.001).
Conclusion
CEM is superior to standard 2D digital mammography for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and is a reliable and more accurate method for estimating tumour size.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1754-9477</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-9485</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13616</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38146085</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Breast - pathology ; Breast cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - surgery ; Contrast Media ; contrast‐enhanced mammography ; Diameters ; Digital imaging ; disease extent ; Female ; Histology ; Humans ; Lesions ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Mammography ; Mammography - methods ; Medical imaging ; surgery ; Tumors ; tumour size</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2024-03, Vol.68 (2), p.141-149</ispartof><rights>2023 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-a7f0e1e47367e8751e57141497eef79929d694effbf48edeb9184c414ad2ecac3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0347-3933</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2F1754-9485.13616$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2F1754-9485.13616$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27915,27916,45565,45566</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38146085$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varma, Nisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lan Cheong Wah, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chew, Renny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botha, Tanita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paiva, Joseph</creatorcontrib><title>Performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre</title><title>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</title><addtitle>J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol</addtitle><description>Introduction
To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low‐energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning.
Methods
Biopsy proven breast cancer patients who underwent CEM preoperatively between January 2021 and January 2023 were included in this study. CEM and LEM images were independently reviewed by at least two blinded readers. Lesion location, number, size (maximal diameter) and extension across the midline and/or nipple invasion were recorded. Tumour number and size estimated on imaging were compared with final operative histology, which served as the gold standard.
Results
Forty‐nine patients (48 females and 1 male) and 50 cases (one patient had bilateral breast lesions) were included in the analysis. Median patient age was 60 (IQR 51, 69). CEM had significantly higher lesion detection rate compared with LEM, with sensitivities of 78% for LEM and 92% for CEM for the index tumour and 15% for LEM and 100% for CEM for multicentric and multifocal cancer. We found no statistically significant difference in median tumour size measurements on CEM and final surgical specimen (P value = 0.97); however, a significant difference was identified in the tumour size measured on LEM and surgical specimen (P value < 0.001).
Conclusion
CEM is superior to standard 2D digital mammography for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and is a reliable and more accurate method for estimating tumour size.</description><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>contrast‐enhanced mammography</subject><subject>Diameters</subject><subject>Digital imaging</subject><subject>disease extent</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Histology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mammography - methods</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>surgery</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>tumour size</subject><issn>1754-9477</issn><issn>1754-9485</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQhyMEoqVw5oYsceHAtvHGjmNuq6oFpEogBOfI64y3rvwn2ElhOfUReDYegSdhkpQ9cCGXJJ7P34z9K4rntDyl-JxRwdlKsoaf0qqm9YPi-LDy8PAtxFHxJOebsqwpZfJxcVQ1lNVlw4-LXx8hmZi8ChpINETHMCSVh993PyFcT6sd8cr7uEuqv94TZEkHA-jBhh3xoxusiVo5okK3_GpAg9VkmwA9RE-ONJfhVrlRzRuH0ccxkWx_wOu5Zn3vrMZiDHlukse0s5MYR1M78Gh9Qy5UcnsC33tIFqaJbSCKDJAGq9KezK3hafHIKJfh2f37pPhyefH5_N3q6sPb9-ebq5Wu1rxeKWFKoMBEVQtoBKfABWV4PwLACCnXsqslA2O2hjXQwVbShmkEVLcGrXR1UrxavH2KX0fIQ-tt1uCcChDH3K4l3rdoyqpB9OU_6A0eP-B0SEmObWXDkTpbKJ1izglM2yfr8WAtLdsp7nYKtJ3Cbee4cceLe--49dAd-L_5IsAX4Jt1sP-fr9182iziP-Qtu3Y</recordid><startdate>202403</startdate><enddate>202403</enddate><creator>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret</creator><creator>Varma, Nisha</creator><creator>Lan Cheong Wah, David</creator><creator>Chew, Renny</creator><creator>Botha, Tanita</creator><creator>Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan</creator><creator>Paiva, Joseph</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0347-3933</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202403</creationdate><title>Performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre</title><author>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret ; Varma, Nisha ; Lan Cheong Wah, David ; Chew, Renny ; Botha, Tanita ; Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan ; Paiva, Joseph</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3256-a7f0e1e47367e8751e57141497eef79929d694effbf48edeb9184c414ad2ecac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>contrast‐enhanced mammography</topic><topic>Diameters</topic><topic>Digital imaging</topic><topic>disease extent</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Histology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mammography - methods</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>surgery</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>tumour size</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varma, Nisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lan Cheong Wah, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chew, Renny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botha, Tanita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paiva, Joseph</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thanh Ha Nguyen, Margaret</au><au>Varma, Nisha</au><au>Lan Cheong Wah, David</au><au>Chew, Renny</au><au>Botha, Tanita</au><au>Kouloyan‐Ilic, Susan</au><au>Paiva, Joseph</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol</addtitle><date>2024-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>141</spage><epage>149</epage><pages>141-149</pages><issn>1754-9477</issn><eissn>1754-9485</eissn><abstract>Introduction
To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low‐energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning.
Methods
Biopsy proven breast cancer patients who underwent CEM preoperatively between January 2021 and January 2023 were included in this study. CEM and LEM images were independently reviewed by at least two blinded readers. Lesion location, number, size (maximal diameter) and extension across the midline and/or nipple invasion were recorded. Tumour number and size estimated on imaging were compared with final operative histology, which served as the gold standard.
Results
Forty‐nine patients (48 females and 1 male) and 50 cases (one patient had bilateral breast lesions) were included in the analysis. Median patient age was 60 (IQR 51, 69). CEM had significantly higher lesion detection rate compared with LEM, with sensitivities of 78% for LEM and 92% for CEM for the index tumour and 15% for LEM and 100% for CEM for multicentric and multifocal cancer. We found no statistically significant difference in median tumour size measurements on CEM and final surgical specimen (P value = 0.97); however, a significant difference was identified in the tumour size measured on LEM and surgical specimen (P value < 0.001).
Conclusion
CEM is superior to standard 2D digital mammography for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and is a reliable and more accurate method for estimating tumour size.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>38146085</pmid><doi>10.1111/1754-9485.13616</doi><tpages>149</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0347-3933</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1754-9477 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2024-03, Vol.68 (2), p.141-149 |
| issn | 1754-9477 1754-9485 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2906178038 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Breast - pathology Breast cancer Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - surgery Contrast Media contrast‐enhanced mammography Diameters Digital imaging disease extent Female Histology Humans Lesions Magnetic Resonance Imaging Male Mammography Mammography - methods Medical imaging surgery Tumors tumour size |
| title | Performance of contrast‐enhanced mammography for detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluating tumour size, and implications for surgical management: Early experience in a tertiary centre |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T22%3A30%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20of%20contrast%E2%80%90enhanced%20mammography%20for%20detecting%20multifocal%20and%20multicentric%20breast%20cancer%20and%20evaluating%20tumour%20size,%20and%20implications%20for%20surgical%20management:%20Early%20experience%20in%20a%20tertiary%20centre&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20imaging%20and%20radiation%20oncology&rft.au=Thanh%20Ha%20Nguyen,%20Margaret&rft.date=2024-03&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=141&rft.epage=149&rft.pages=141-149&rft.issn=1754-9477&rft.eissn=1754-9485&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1754-9485.13616&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2906178038%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2995141985&rft_id=info:pmid/38146085&rfr_iscdi=true |