Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bicchierai, G.; Busoni, S.; Tortoli, P.; Bettarini, S.; Di Naro, F.; De Benedetto, D.; Savi, E.; Bellini, C.; Miele, V.; Nori, J. Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT). Acad. Radiol. 2022, 29, 1342–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cozzi, A.; Magni, V.; Zanardo, M.; Schiaffino, S.; Sardanelli, F. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance. Radiology 2022, 302, 568–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jochelson, M.S.; Lobbes, M.B.I. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art. Radiology 2021, 299, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gelardi, F.; Ragaini, E.M.; Sollini, M.; Bernardi, D.; Chiti, A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kamal, R.M.; Helal, M.H.; Mansour, S.M.; Haggag, M.A.; Nada, O.M.; Farahat, I.G.; Alieldin, N.H. Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? Br. J. Radiol. 2016, 89, 20160157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, C.H.; Phillips, J.; Sung, J.S.; Lewin, J.M.; Newell, M.S. ACR BI-RADS® ATLAS-MAMMOGRAPHY CONTRAST ENHANCED MAMMOGRAPHY (CEM); A Supplement to ACR BI-RADS® Mammography 2013; American College of Radiology: Reston, VA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, E.A.; Comstock, C.E.; Lee, C.H.; et al. ACR BI-RADS® Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System; American College of Radiology: Reston, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Spak, D.A.; Plaxco, J.S.; Santiago, L.; Dryden, M.J.; Dogan, B.E. BI-RADS® fifth edition: A summary of changes. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2017, 98, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bellini, C.; Bicchierai, G.; Amato, F.; Savi, E.; De Benedetto, D.; Di Naro, F.; Boeri, C.; Vanzi, E.; Miele, V.; Nori, J. Comparison between second-look ultrasound and second-look digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of additional lesions with presurgical CESM. Br. J. Radiol. 2022, 95, 20210927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sickles, E.A.; D’Orsi, C.J.; Bassett, L.W.; et al. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System; American College of Radiology: Reston, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Mendelson, E.B.; Böhm-Vélez, M.; Berg, W.A.; et al. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound. In ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System; American College of Radiology: Reston, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Alcantara, R.; Posso, M.; Pitarch, M.; Arenas, N.; Ejarque, B.; Iotti, V.; Besutti, G. Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: Technical feasibility and first outcomes. Eur. Radiol. 2022. Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schiaffino, S.; Cozzi, A. Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: Why, when, and where we need it. Eur. Radiol. 2022. Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bicchierai, G.; Tonelli, P.; Piacenti, A.; De Benedetto, D.; Boeri, C.; Vanzi, E.; Bianchi, S.; Cirone, D.; Kaur Gill, M.; Miele, V.; et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Large-scale single-center experience. Breast J. 2020, 26, 1276–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hong, C.S.; Oha, T.G. Correlation plot for a contingency table. Commun. Stat. Appl. Methods 2021, 28, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, X.; Zhang, L.; Xing, D.; Gong, P.; Chen, Q.; Lv, Y. Diagnostic value of the enhancement intensity and enhancement pattern of CESM to benign and malignant breast lesions. Medicine 2020, 99, e22097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Savaridas, S.L.; Tennant, S.L. Quantifying lesion enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: A review of published data. Clin. Radiol. 2022, 77, e313–e320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sorin, V.; Yagil, Y.; Shalmon, A.; Gotlieb, M.; Faermann, R.; Halshtok-Neiman, O.; Sklair-Levy, M. Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) as a Breast Cancer Risk Factor. Acad. Radiol. 2020, 27, 1234–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Viggiano, T.; Scott, R.; Sharpe, R.; Kasper, C.; Mazza, G.; Pizzitola, V.; Giurescu, M.; Lorans, R.; Eversman, W.; Patel, B.K. Contrast Enhanced Mammography in Routine Clinical Practice: Frequency and Malignancy Rates of Enhancing Otherwise Occult Findings. Clin. Breast Cancer 2022, 22, e736–e744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bicchierai, G.; Amato, F.; Vanzi, B.; De Benedetto, D.; Boeri, C.; Vanzi, E.; Di Naro, F.; Bianchi, S.; Cirone, D.; Cozzi, D.; et al. Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)? Breast 2020, 54, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Łuczyńska, E.; Niemiec, J.; Hendrick, E.; Heinze, S.; Jaszczyński, J.; Jakubowicz, J.; Sas-Korczyńska, B.; Rys, J. Degree of Enhancement on Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Lesion Type on Mammography (MG): Comparison Based on Histological Results. Med. Sci. Monit. 2016, 22, 3886–3893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Knogler, T.; Homolka, P.; Hoernig, M.; Leithner, R.; Langs, G.; Waitzbauer, M.; Pinker, K.; Leitner, S.; Helbich, T.H. Application of BI-RADS Descriptors in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: Comparison with MRI. Breast Care 2017, 12, 212–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Zhao, S.; Huang, J.; Zhang, X.; Qin, Y.; Zhong, H.; Yu, J. Quantitative Analysis of Enhancement Intensity and Patterns on Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rudnicki, W.; Heinze, S.; Niemiec, J.; Kojs, Z.; Sas-Korczynska, B.; Hendrick, E.; Luczynska, E. Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology-preliminary results. Eur. Radiol. 2019, 29, 6220–6226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Fisher Exact Test—Enhancement Conspicuity/Cancer-No Cancer | |||
---|---|---|---|
Enhancement conspicuity | Cancer (n) | No Cancer (n) | p-value |
Low | 3 | 23 | 0.071 |
Moderate | 6 | 14 | |
High | 10 | 8 | |
Enhancement conspicuity | Cancer (n) | No Cancer (n) | p-value |
Low | 3 | 23 | 0.0117 |
Not Low (Moderate and High) | 16 | 22 | |
Enhancement conspicuity | Cancer (n) | No Cancer (n) | p-value |
Moderate | 6 | 14 | 1.0000 |
Not Moderate (Low and High) | 13 | 31 | |
Enhancement conspicuity | Cancer (n) | No Cancer (n) | p-value |
High | 10 | 8 | 0.0071 |
Not High (Low and Moderate) | 9 | 37 |
B5 | |||
---|---|---|---|
GRADING | HYSTOLOGY | ||
G1 (10/19) | |||
Invasive tubular carcinoma | 4 | ||
Invasive ductal carcinoma | 3 | ||
Ductal and papillary carcinoma | 1 | ||
Lobular carcinoma | 1 | ||
Colloid carcinoma | 1 | ||
G2 (5/19) | |||
Ductal and papillary carcinoma | 1 | ||
Invasive ductal carcinoma | 1 | ||
Ductal in situ carcinoma | 2 | ||
Invasive lobular carcinoma | 1 | ||
G3 (4/19) | |||
Invasive ductal carcinoma | 2 | ||
Lobular and ductal carcinoma | 1 | ||
Ductal and colloid carcinoma | 1 | ||
TOTAL | 19 | ||
B3 | Atypical ductal hyperplasia | 2 | |
Radial scar | 1 | ||
Classical lobular neoplasia | 1 | ||
Flat epithelial atypia | 1 | ||
TOTAL | 5 | ||
B2 | Fibrocystic breast change | 16 | |
Fibroadenoma | 2 | ||
Phlogosis | 2 | ||
Sclerosing adenosis | 1 | ||
Bening adenomyoepithelioma | 1 | ||
TOTAL | 22 |
Patient Age | Additional/Principal | Size (mm) | Histology Results after Surgery | Grading | Her2 Status | Molecular Subtype |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82 | Additional | 7 | Colloid carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM B |
48 | Additional | 6 | Invasive ductal carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
70 | Principal | 4 | Invasive ductal carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
59 | Additional | 9 | Lobular carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
73 | Additional | 3 | Invasive tubular carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
77 | Additional | 4 | Invasive tubular carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM B |
78 | Additional | 5 | Invasive tubular carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
73 | Additional | 7 | Invasive ductal carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM B |
73 | Principal | 4 | Ductal and papillary carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
53 | Principal | 11 | Invasive tubular carcinoma | G1 | Neg. | LUM A |
46 | Principal | 4 | Ductal in situ carcinoma | G2 | Neg. | LUM A |
60 | Additional | 5 | Ductal in situ carcinoma | G2 | Neg. | LUM A |
53 | Principal | 11 | Invasive ductal carcinoma | G2 | Neg. | LUM B |
46 | Principal | 9 | Ductal and papillary carcinoma | G2 | Neg. | LUM B |
71 | Principal | 14 | Invasive lobular carcinoma | G2 | Neg. | LUM A |
51 | Additional | 3 | Invasive ductal carcinoma | G3 | Neg. | Basal-like |
42 | Additional | 15 | Ductal and colloid carcinoma | G3 | Neg. | LUM B |
48 | Principal | 2.5 | Invasive ductal carcinoma | G3 | Neg. | LUM B |
62 | Additional | 9 | Lobular and ductal carcinoma | G3 | Neg. | LUM B |
Patients | EA | p Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Benign (%) | Malignant (%) | |||
INDICATION | ||||
Pre-surgical assessment | 36 | 23 (63.9%) | 13 (36.1%) | ns |
Problem-solving | 28 | 22 (78.6%) | 6 (21.4%) | ns |
BREAST COMPOSITION | ||||
A | 4 | 1 (25%) | 3 (75%) | ns |
B | 36 | 24 (66.7%) | 12 (33.3%) | ns |
C | 15 | 13 (86.7%) | 2 (13.3%) | ns |
D | 9 | 7 (77.8%) | 2 (22.2%) | ns |
BPE | ||||
Minimal | 23 | 16 (69.6%) | 7 (30.4%) | ns |
Mild | 20 | 12 (60%) | 8 (40%) | ns |
Moderate | 13 | 10 (76.9%) | 3 (23.1%) | ns |
High | 8 | 7 (87.5%) | 1 (12.5%) | ns |
CORRELATE | ||||
Focal Density | 6 | 4 (66.7%) | 2 (33.3%) | ns |
Opacity | 19 | 14 (73.7%) | 5 (26.3%) | ns |
Microcalcifications | 12 | 11 (91.7%) | 1 (8.3%) | ns |
Architectural distortion | 8 | 3 (37.5%) | 5 (62.5%) | ns |
US hypoechoic masses with circumscribed margins | 10 | 5 (50%) | 5 (50%) | ns |
US masses with indistinct margins | 6 | 5 (83.3%) | 1 (16.7%) | ns |
MRI mass/non-mass/focus | 3 | 3 (100%) | 0 | ns |
BIOPSY | ||||
Percutaneous CNB | 12 | 6 (50%) | 6 (50%) | |
Stereotactic VABB | 32 | 20 (62.5%) | 12 (37.5%) | |
MRI-biopsy | 1 | 1 (100%) | 0 | |
No biopsy | 19 | 18 (94.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | |
PRINCIPAL/ADDITIONAL | ||||
Principal | 19 | 11 (57.9%) | 8 (42.1%) | ns |
Additional | 45 | 34 (75.6%) | 11 (24.4%) | ns |
SIZE | ||||
Mean (mm) | 8.51 [3–23] | 12.05 [4–40] | p: 0.0274 | |
Median (mm) | 8 | 8 | ns | |
INTERNAL ENHANCING PATTERN | ||||
Homogeneous | 35 | 29 (82.9%) | 6 (17.1%) | ns |
Heterogeneous | 29 | 16 (55.2%) | 13 (44.8%) | ns |
ENHANCING CONSPICUITY | ||||
Low | 26 | 23 (88.5%) | 3 (11.5%) | p: 0.0117 |
Moderate | 20 | 14 (70%) | 6 (30%) | ns |
High | 18 | 8 (44.4%) | 10 (55.6%) | p: 0.0071 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Migliaro, G.; Bicchierai, G.; Valente, P.; Di Naro, F.; De Benedetto, D.; Amato, F.; Boeri, C.; Vanzi, E.; Miele, V.; Nori, J. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 1011. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13061011
Migliaro G, Bicchierai G, Valente P, Di Naro F, De Benedetto D, Amato F, Boeri C, Vanzi E, Miele V, Nori J. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(6):1011. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13061011
Chicago/Turabian StyleMigliaro, Giuliano, Giulia Bicchierai, Pietro Valente, Federica Di Naro, Diego De Benedetto, Francesco Amato, Cecilia Boeri, Ermanno Vanzi, Vittorio Miele, and Jacopo Nori. 2023. "Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis" Diagnostics 13, no. 6: 1011. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13061011
APA StyleMigliaro, G., Bicchierai, G., Valente, P., Di Naro, F., De Benedetto, D., Amato, F., Boeri, C., Vanzi, E., Miele, V., & Nori, J. (2023). Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Enhancing Asymmetry: Single-Center First Case Analysis. Diagnostics, 13(6), 1011. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13061011