Diagnostic Capabilities of MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Dense Breasts
https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2017-3-126-132
Abstract
Objective: to study the technique of contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) and to make a comparative analysis of the accuracy of CESM and MRI in dense breasts.
Materials and methods. Was analyzed data of the world researches dedicated comparative characteristics of contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) and MRI. The MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) were performed 61 patients in our center from 04.2017 to 05.2017. The sensitivity and specificity of the methods were evaluated, these data were compared with the results of published studies.
Results. Contrast mammography (CESM) is a highly sensitive and specific technique in detecting cancer in dense breasts, comparable in informativeness of contrastenhanced MRI. The sensitivity of CESM and MRI was 100%, the specificity was 100% and 94% respectively.
Conclusion. Contrast mammography (CESM) is a perspective techique for earlier diagnosis of breast carcinomas, even with dense breasts.
About the Authors
V. A. Solodkiy
Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. A. Oksanchuk
Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena A. Oksanchuk – junior researcher of laboratory of X-ray radiology, ultrasound and X-ray surgical techniques in mammalogy (the Federal Breast Center) research department of early carcinogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and comprehensive treatment of cancers of the female reproductive organs
Contact: Elena A. Oksanchuk – 141011, Russia, Moscow region, Kolpakova str., 34 B – 25.
E. V. Meskih
Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology
Russian Federation
Elena V. Meskih – doct. of med. sci., professor, head of laboratory of X-ray radiology, ultrasound and X-ray surgical techniques in mammalogy (the Federal Breast Center) research department of early carcinogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and comprehensive treatment of cancers of the female reproductive organs
Russian Federation
Elena V. Meskih – doct. of med. sci., professor, head of laboratory of X-ray radiology, ultrasound and X-ray surgical techniques in mammalogy (the Federal Breast Center) research department of early carcinogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and comprehensive treatment of cancers of the female reproductive organs
A. U. Kolesnik
Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology
Russian Federation
Antonina Yu. Kolesnik – cand. of med. sci., researcher of laboratory of X-ray radiology, ultrasound and X-ray surgical techniques in mammalogy (the Federal Breast Center) research department of early carcinogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and comprehensive treatment of cancers of the female reproductive organs
Russian Federation
Antonina Yu. Kolesnik – cand. of med. sci., researcher of laboratory of X-ray radiology, ultrasound and X-ray surgical techniques in mammalogy (the Federal Breast Center) research department of early carcinogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and comprehensive treatment of cancers of the female reproductive organs
N. V. Nudnov
Russian Scientific Center of Roentgenoradiology
Russian Federation
Nikolai V. Nudnov – doсt. of med. sci., professor, Deputy Director for Scientific Research
Russian Federation
Nikolai V. Nudnov – doсt. of med. sci., professor, Deputy Director for Scientific Research
References
1. Caprin A.D., Starinski V.V., Petrova G.V. Malignant disease in Russia in 2015 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow: The Moscow P.A. Gertsen Research Institute of Oncology. 2017. 16 p. (In Russian)
2. Korzhenkova G.P., Dolgushin B.I. Experience with digital mammography. Opukholi Zhenskoi Reprodukiivnoi Sistemy. 2011; 1: 37–40. (In Russian)
3. Smith R.A., Duffy S.W., Gabe R., Tabar L., Yen A.M., Chen T.N. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2004; 42 (5): 793–806. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.014.
4. Komarova L.E. Mammographic screening and its role in reducing breast cancer mortality. Opukholi Zhenskoi Reprodukiivnoi Sistemy. 2006; 3: 5–9. (In Russian)
5. Broeders M., Moss S., Nyström L., Njor S., Jonsson H., Paap E., Massat N., Duffy S., Lynge E., Paci E., EUROSCREEN Working Group. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J. Med. Screen. 2012; 19 (1): 14–25. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012078.
6. Pisano E.D., Hendrick R.E., Yaffe M.J., Baum J.K. Accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008; 246 (2): 376–383. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461070200.
7. Freer P.E. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics. 2015; 35 (2): 302–315. DOI: 10.1148/rg.352140106.
8. Mandelson M.T., Oestreicher N., Porter P.L., White D., Finder C.A., Taplin S.H., White E. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of intervaland screen-detected cancers. J. Nat. Cancer Institute. 2000; 92 (13): 1081–1087. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081.
9. SenoBright Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography. Operation manual. 1st edition© 2010–2016 by General Electric Company. 5391269-5-1RU. (In Russian)
10. Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography. Quality manual. 1st edition© 2010–2014 by General Electric Company. 5391271-3-1RU. (In Russian)
11. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas).
12. Thibault F., Balleyguier C., Tardivon A., Dromain C. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI? Eur. J. Radiol. 2012; 81S1: 162–164. DOI: 10.1016/S0720-048X(12)70068-2.
13. Jochelson M. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2014; 52: 609–616. DOI:10.1016/j.rcl.2013.12.004.
14. Łuczynska E., Heinze-Paluchowska S., Hendrick E., Dyczek S., Rys J., Herman K., Blecharz P., Jakubowicz J. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med. Sci. Monit. 2015; 12 (21): 1358–1367. DOI:10.12659/MSM.893018.
15. Lobbes M.B.I., Lalji U.C., Nelemans P.J., Houben I., Smidt M.L., Heuts E., Vries B., Wildberger J.E., BeetsTan R.G. The quality of tumor size assessment by contrastenhanced spectral mammography and the benefit of additional breast MRI. J. Cancer. 2015; 6 (2): 144–150. DOI: 10.7150/jca.10705.
16. Jochelson M.S., Dershaw D., Sung J.S., Heerdt A.S., Thoenton C., Moskowitz C.S., Ferrara J., Morris E.A. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-Energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013; 266 (3): 743–751. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121084.
17. Phillips J., Miller M.M., Mehta T.S., Fein-Zachary V. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes. JACR. 2017; 3: 193–197. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.12.011.
18. Dromain C., Thibault F., Diekmann F., Fallenberg E.M., Jong R.A., Koomen. M., Hendrick E.R., Tardivon A., Toledano A. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012; 14: R94: 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/bcr3210.
Review
For citations:
Solodkiy V.A., Oksanchuk E.A., Meskih E.V., Kolesnik A.U., Nudnov N.V. Diagnostic Capabilities of MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Dense Breasts. Medical Visualization. 2017;(3):126-132. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-2017-3-126-132
Views:
1860
Email this article 