Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast

Bhavika Patel, John Davis, Christina Ferraro, Heidi Kosiorek, Karl Hasselbach, Tolgay Ocal, Barbara A Pockaj

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To study the ability of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) to accurately assess disease extent with CEDM compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven invasive lobular carcinoma. We (ILC), we performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients with pre-operativepreoperative FFDM, CEDM, and gold reference-standard post-operativepostoperative histopathology. Both Lin's and Pearson's correlation coefficients measures were higher for CEDM (P < .05). CEDM outperformsoutperformed FFDM in assessing the extent of ILC, thereby improving surgical outcomes. Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most frequently diagnosed breast cancer, accounting for 5% to 15% of all invasive breast cancers, yet it remains radiologically elusive in many cases. The goal of this study was to compare the ability to accurately assess disease extent with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven ILC. Patients and Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ILC with preoperative CEDM was performed. One of 3 blinded radiologist readers rereviewed cases within 1 month of another. Final size diameter was based on the largest dimension on recombined CEDM or FFDM and compared to the reference standard histopathology. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the differences between tumor size on imaging and pathology. Results: Thirty women were included. Mean tumor diameter was 27.0 mm (range, 7.0-118 mm) on postoperative histology, 26.0 mm on CEDM, and 16.4 mm on standard mammogram. For CEDM versus FFDM, 5 (16.7%) of 30 versus 9 (30.0%) of 30 cases underestimated pathology by > 10 mm and 5 (16.7%) of 30 versus 3 (10.0%) of 30 overestimated histopathology by > 10 mm, respectively. Two (6.7%) of 30 cases required surgical reexcision. Both Lin (0.87 vs. 0.55) and Pearson (0.87 vs. 0.70) correlation coefficient measures were higher for CEDM versus FFDM. Conclusion: CEDM outperforms standard digital mammography in ability to accurately assess disease extent in patients with biopsy-proven ILC, resulting in improved surgical outcomes. Future studies should compare surgical outcomes in patients with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and CEDM in patients with ILC.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical Breast Cancer
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Lobular Carcinoma
Mammography
Breast
Biopsy
Gold
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • CEDM
  • CEM
  • CESM
  • ILC

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast. / Patel, Bhavika; Davis, John; Ferraro, Christina; Kosiorek, Heidi; Hasselbach, Karl; Ocal, Tolgay; Pockaj, Barbara A.

In: Clinical Breast Cancer, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a8b7a2e8dda04705927505bf435a93ed,
title = "Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast",
abstract = "To study the ability of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) to accurately assess disease extent with CEDM compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven invasive lobular carcinoma. We (ILC), we performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients with pre-operativepreoperative FFDM, CEDM, and gold reference-standard post-operativepostoperative histopathology. Both Lin's and Pearson's correlation coefficients measures were higher for CEDM (P < .05). CEDM outperformsoutperformed FFDM in assessing the extent of ILC, thereby improving surgical outcomes. Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most frequently diagnosed breast cancer, accounting for 5{\%} to 15{\%} of all invasive breast cancers, yet it remains radiologically elusive in many cases. The goal of this study was to compare the ability to accurately assess disease extent with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven ILC. Patients and Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ILC with preoperative CEDM was performed. One of 3 blinded radiologist readers rereviewed cases within 1 month of another. Final size diameter was based on the largest dimension on recombined CEDM or FFDM and compared to the reference standard histopathology. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the differences between tumor size on imaging and pathology. Results: Thirty women were included. Mean tumor diameter was 27.0 mm (range, 7.0-118 mm) on postoperative histology, 26.0 mm on CEDM, and 16.4 mm on standard mammogram. For CEDM versus FFDM, 5 (16.7{\%}) of 30 versus 9 (30.0{\%}) of 30 cases underestimated pathology by > 10 mm and 5 (16.7{\%}) of 30 versus 3 (10.0{\%}) of 30 overestimated histopathology by > 10 mm, respectively. Two (6.7{\%}) of 30 cases required surgical reexcision. Both Lin (0.87 vs. 0.55) and Pearson (0.87 vs. 0.70) correlation coefficient measures were higher for CEDM versus FFDM. Conclusion: CEDM outperforms standard digital mammography in ability to accurately assess disease extent in patients with biopsy-proven ILC, resulting in improved surgical outcomes. Future studies should compare surgical outcomes in patients with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and CEDM in patients with ILC.",
keywords = "Breast cancer, CEDM, CEM, CESM, ILC",
author = "Bhavika Patel and John Davis and Christina Ferraro and Heidi Kosiorek and Karl Hasselbach and Tolgay Ocal and Pockaj, {Barbara A}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.012",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Clinical Breast Cancer",
issn = "1526-8209",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast

AU - Patel, Bhavika

AU - Davis, John

AU - Ferraro, Christina

AU - Kosiorek, Heidi

AU - Hasselbach, Karl

AU - Ocal, Tolgay

AU - Pockaj, Barbara A

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - To study the ability of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) to accurately assess disease extent with CEDM compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven invasive lobular carcinoma. We (ILC), we performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients with pre-operativepreoperative FFDM, CEDM, and gold reference-standard post-operativepostoperative histopathology. Both Lin's and Pearson's correlation coefficients measures were higher for CEDM (P < .05). CEDM outperformsoutperformed FFDM in assessing the extent of ILC, thereby improving surgical outcomes. Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most frequently diagnosed breast cancer, accounting for 5% to 15% of all invasive breast cancers, yet it remains radiologically elusive in many cases. The goal of this study was to compare the ability to accurately assess disease extent with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven ILC. Patients and Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ILC with preoperative CEDM was performed. One of 3 blinded radiologist readers rereviewed cases within 1 month of another. Final size diameter was based on the largest dimension on recombined CEDM or FFDM and compared to the reference standard histopathology. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the differences between tumor size on imaging and pathology. Results: Thirty women were included. Mean tumor diameter was 27.0 mm (range, 7.0-118 mm) on postoperative histology, 26.0 mm on CEDM, and 16.4 mm on standard mammogram. For CEDM versus FFDM, 5 (16.7%) of 30 versus 9 (30.0%) of 30 cases underestimated pathology by > 10 mm and 5 (16.7%) of 30 versus 3 (10.0%) of 30 overestimated histopathology by > 10 mm, respectively. Two (6.7%) of 30 cases required surgical reexcision. Both Lin (0.87 vs. 0.55) and Pearson (0.87 vs. 0.70) correlation coefficient measures were higher for CEDM versus FFDM. Conclusion: CEDM outperforms standard digital mammography in ability to accurately assess disease extent in patients with biopsy-proven ILC, resulting in improved surgical outcomes. Future studies should compare surgical outcomes in patients with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and CEDM in patients with ILC.

AB - To study the ability of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) to accurately assess disease extent with CEDM compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven invasive lobular carcinoma. We (ILC), we performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients with pre-operativepreoperative FFDM, CEDM, and gold reference-standard post-operativepostoperative histopathology. Both Lin's and Pearson's correlation coefficients measures were higher for CEDM (P < .05). CEDM outperformsoutperformed FFDM in assessing the extent of ILC, thereby improving surgical outcomes. Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most frequently diagnosed breast cancer, accounting for 5% to 15% of all invasive breast cancers, yet it remains radiologically elusive in many cases. The goal of this study was to compare the ability to accurately assess disease extent with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in patients with biopsy-proven ILC. Patients and Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ILC with preoperative CEDM was performed. One of 3 blinded radiologist readers rereviewed cases within 1 month of another. Final size diameter was based on the largest dimension on recombined CEDM or FFDM and compared to the reference standard histopathology. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the differences between tumor size on imaging and pathology. Results: Thirty women were included. Mean tumor diameter was 27.0 mm (range, 7.0-118 mm) on postoperative histology, 26.0 mm on CEDM, and 16.4 mm on standard mammogram. For CEDM versus FFDM, 5 (16.7%) of 30 versus 9 (30.0%) of 30 cases underestimated pathology by > 10 mm and 5 (16.7%) of 30 versus 3 (10.0%) of 30 overestimated histopathology by > 10 mm, respectively. Two (6.7%) of 30 cases required surgical reexcision. Both Lin (0.87 vs. 0.55) and Pearson (0.87 vs. 0.70) correlation coefficient measures were higher for CEDM versus FFDM. Conclusion: CEDM outperforms standard digital mammography in ability to accurately assess disease extent in patients with biopsy-proven ILC, resulting in improved surgical outcomes. Future studies should compare surgical outcomes in patients with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and CEDM in patients with ILC.

KW - Breast cancer

KW - CEDM

KW - CEM

KW - CESM

KW - ILC

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051521441&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85051521441&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.012

DO - 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 30122347

AN - SCOPUS:85051521441

JO - Clinical Breast Cancer

JF - Clinical Breast Cancer

SN - 1526-8209

ER -