Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound

Bhavika Patel, Sandra Alheli Garza, Sarah Eversman, Yania Lopez-Alvarez, Heidi Kosiorek, Barbara A Pockaj

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To compare breast cancer size measurements on full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEDM), and ultrasound (US), with histologic tumor size used as the reference standard. Material and methods The HIPAA complaint, IRB approved study comprised 88 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent FFDM and CEDM;74 also had US. Breast density, histologic subtype, and maximum tumor measurements were recorded. Results Pearson correlation coefficients for FFDM, US, and CEDM vs histopathology were 0.598, 0.639, and 0.859, respectively (P < 0.001). The following correlation coefficients were calculated for dense breasts (n = 48): histopathology vs FFDM (0.555), US (0.633), and CEDM (0.843) (P < 0.001); for nondense breasts (n = 40), they were FFDM (0.618), US (0.512), and CEDM (0.885) (P < 0.001). For size difference, the mean (SD) for histopathology vs FFDM, US, and CEDM was − 1.3 (11.9) mm, − 2.8 (11.1) mm, and 2.9 (9.5) mm, respectively. Limits of agreement were − 24.8 to 22.0 mm, − 24.5 to 18.8 mm, and − 15.6 to 21.4 mm, respectively. Conclusions In patients with biopsy-proven malignancy, size measurements correlated well with histopathologic size, and were higher on CEDM than those for FFDM and US in patients with dense or nondense breasts. The added value of CEDM as a supplement to FFDM in determining tumor size, however, was greater in patients with dense breasts. CEDM may be a promising alternative preoperative measurement tool for breast cancer patients with dense breasts and/or limited access or contraindications to MRI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)78-84
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Imaging
Volume46
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017

Fingerprint

Mammography
Neoplasms
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Mammary Ultrasonography
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Research Ethics Committees

Keywords

  • Breast
  • Breast cancer
  • CEDM
  • CESM
  • contrast-enhanced digital mammography
  • contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
  • DE-CEDM

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound. / Patel, Bhavika; Garza, Sandra Alheli; Eversman, Sarah; Lopez-Alvarez, Yania; Kosiorek, Heidi; Pockaj, Barbara A.

In: Clinical Imaging, Vol. 46, 01.11.2017, p. 78-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patel, Bhavika ; Garza, Sandra Alheli ; Eversman, Sarah ; Lopez-Alvarez, Yania ; Kosiorek, Heidi ; Pockaj, Barbara A. / Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound. In: Clinical Imaging. 2017 ; Vol. 46. pp. 78-84.
@article{f97d8295364d424ab9d3b9a510ba54a5,
title = "Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound",
abstract = "Objectives To compare breast cancer size measurements on full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEDM), and ultrasound (US), with histologic tumor size used as the reference standard. Material and methods The HIPAA complaint, IRB approved study comprised 88 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent FFDM and CEDM;74 also had US. Breast density, histologic subtype, and maximum tumor measurements were recorded. Results Pearson correlation coefficients for FFDM, US, and CEDM vs histopathology were 0.598, 0.639, and 0.859, respectively (P < 0.001). The following correlation coefficients were calculated for dense breasts (n = 48): histopathology vs FFDM (0.555), US (0.633), and CEDM (0.843) (P < 0.001); for nondense breasts (n = 40), they were FFDM (0.618), US (0.512), and CEDM (0.885) (P < 0.001). For size difference, the mean (SD) for histopathology vs FFDM, US, and CEDM was − 1.3 (11.9) mm, − 2.8 (11.1) mm, and 2.9 (9.5) mm, respectively. Limits of agreement were − 24.8 to 22.0 mm, − 24.5 to 18.8 mm, and − 15.6 to 21.4 mm, respectively. Conclusions In patients with biopsy-proven malignancy, size measurements correlated well with histopathologic size, and were higher on CEDM than those for FFDM and US in patients with dense or nondense breasts. The added value of CEDM as a supplement to FFDM in determining tumor size, however, was greater in patients with dense breasts. CEDM may be a promising alternative preoperative measurement tool for breast cancer patients with dense breasts and/or limited access or contraindications to MRI.",
keywords = "Breast, Breast cancer, CEDM, CESM, contrast-enhanced digital mammography, contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, DE-CEDM",
author = "Bhavika Patel and Garza, {Sandra Alheli} and Sarah Eversman and Yania Lopez-Alvarez and Heidi Kosiorek and Pockaj, {Barbara A}",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.07.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "78--84",
journal = "Clinical Imaging",
issn = "0899-7071",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound

AU - Patel, Bhavika

AU - Garza, Sandra Alheli

AU - Eversman, Sarah

AU - Lopez-Alvarez, Yania

AU - Kosiorek, Heidi

AU - Pockaj, Barbara A

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Objectives To compare breast cancer size measurements on full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEDM), and ultrasound (US), with histologic tumor size used as the reference standard. Material and methods The HIPAA complaint, IRB approved study comprised 88 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent FFDM and CEDM;74 also had US. Breast density, histologic subtype, and maximum tumor measurements were recorded. Results Pearson correlation coefficients for FFDM, US, and CEDM vs histopathology were 0.598, 0.639, and 0.859, respectively (P < 0.001). The following correlation coefficients were calculated for dense breasts (n = 48): histopathology vs FFDM (0.555), US (0.633), and CEDM (0.843) (P < 0.001); for nondense breasts (n = 40), they were FFDM (0.618), US (0.512), and CEDM (0.885) (P < 0.001). For size difference, the mean (SD) for histopathology vs FFDM, US, and CEDM was − 1.3 (11.9) mm, − 2.8 (11.1) mm, and 2.9 (9.5) mm, respectively. Limits of agreement were − 24.8 to 22.0 mm, − 24.5 to 18.8 mm, and − 15.6 to 21.4 mm, respectively. Conclusions In patients with biopsy-proven malignancy, size measurements correlated well with histopathologic size, and were higher on CEDM than those for FFDM and US in patients with dense or nondense breasts. The added value of CEDM as a supplement to FFDM in determining tumor size, however, was greater in patients with dense breasts. CEDM may be a promising alternative preoperative measurement tool for breast cancer patients with dense breasts and/or limited access or contraindications to MRI.

AB - Objectives To compare breast cancer size measurements on full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEDM), and ultrasound (US), with histologic tumor size used as the reference standard. Material and methods The HIPAA complaint, IRB approved study comprised 88 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent FFDM and CEDM;74 also had US. Breast density, histologic subtype, and maximum tumor measurements were recorded. Results Pearson correlation coefficients for FFDM, US, and CEDM vs histopathology were 0.598, 0.639, and 0.859, respectively (P < 0.001). The following correlation coefficients were calculated for dense breasts (n = 48): histopathology vs FFDM (0.555), US (0.633), and CEDM (0.843) (P < 0.001); for nondense breasts (n = 40), they were FFDM (0.618), US (0.512), and CEDM (0.885) (P < 0.001). For size difference, the mean (SD) for histopathology vs FFDM, US, and CEDM was − 1.3 (11.9) mm, − 2.8 (11.1) mm, and 2.9 (9.5) mm, respectively. Limits of agreement were − 24.8 to 22.0 mm, − 24.5 to 18.8 mm, and − 15.6 to 21.4 mm, respectively. Conclusions In patients with biopsy-proven malignancy, size measurements correlated well with histopathologic size, and were higher on CEDM than those for FFDM and US in patients with dense or nondense breasts. The added value of CEDM as a supplement to FFDM in determining tumor size, however, was greater in patients with dense breasts. CEDM may be a promising alternative preoperative measurement tool for breast cancer patients with dense breasts and/or limited access or contraindications to MRI.

KW - Breast

KW - Breast cancer

KW - CEDM

KW - CESM

KW - contrast-enhanced digital mammography

KW - contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

KW - DE-CEDM

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85025434157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85025434157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.07.001

DO - 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.07.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 28750354

AN - SCOPUS:85025434157

VL - 46

SP - 78

EP - 84

JO - Clinical Imaging

JF - Clinical Imaging

SN - 0899-7071

ER -