Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?

Kamal, Rasha; Helal, M. A.; Mansour, Sahar; Haggag, Marwa A.; Nada, Omniya M; Farahat, Iman Gouda; Alieldin, Nelly

doi:10.1259/bjr.20160157

Cited by 53 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A smooth circumscribed margin is seen in benign lesions versus a speculated or irregular margin seen in malignancy; heterogeneous enhancement pattern was exhibited mostly by malignant lesions. Dark septa are seen in fibroadenomas, which agree with other documentations [12,15,16]. Mass with rim enhancement is an unreliable sign in predicting malignancy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…MRI lexicon for morphological analysis according to ACR 2018 classifies the lesions in subtracted images into focus, mass, and non-mass enhancement [12]. Our results showed a positive moderate correlation between lesions in CEDM and pathology (0.6) as majority of malignant pathology was detected as mass enhancement particularly and benign pathology and normality in non- enhanced lesions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries

Soliman

Mohammad

El-Shinawi

et al. 2020

Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mammographic focal asymmetry represents normal breast tissue, benign, or malignant lesions. Accurate characterization is important for better management. The study evaluates diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) for characterization of focal asymmetries seen in 2D mammography. Results The study was done prospectively on 38 females among 360 patients who underwent baseline sonomammographic assessment for diagnostic and screening purposes. Complementary ultrasound was performed only when a finding was detected in cases of screening mammograms. Focal asymmetries were evaluated according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon 2013. CEDM was performed and followed by ultrasound (US) guided core biopsy for solid lesions or aspiration for cystic lesions. CEDM processing resulted in recombined image showing enhancing abnormality. Low energy image and recombined image findings were analyzed blindly and classified into focus enhancement, mass enhancement, non-mass enhancement, and non-enhanced lesions. CEDM and sonomammography findings were compared regarding pathological probability and multiplicity. Histopathology was the reference standard. Mass enhancement showed strong correlation with malignant pathology. Non-mass enhancement showed no correlation with particular pathology. All non-enhanced focal asymmetries were benign in pathology or normal tissue. Rim enhancement needed second look ultrasound evaluation. CEDM was superior to sonomammography with higher sensitivity (77.8%, 65.7% respectively), NPV (0.8, 0.6), accuracy (0.6, 0.2) but lower specificity (81.8% vs. 100%). Multiplicity detection by CEDM was 26.3% and by sonomammography was 10.5%. Conclusion CEDM is more accurate than sonomammography in determination of normal tissue, benign, or malignant lesions in cases of mammographic focal asymmetry. CEDM is more accurate in detection of multiplicity. Undesired biopsies were avoidable with proper management of suspicious and malignant lesions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries

Soliman

Mohammad

El-Shinawi

et al. 2020

Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 69 studies including a specification of the contrast injection modality, 59 (85%) utilised an automated power injector (10584/11725 patients, 90%) while manual contrast injection was carried out in the remaining 10 (15%) [7, 9, 17, 25, 28, 51, 57, 73, 95, 99] for a total of 1141/11725 patients (10%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/vendor, radiation dose, low-/high-energy tube voltage; contrast molecule, concentration and dose; injection modality, ARs and acquisition delay; order of views; examination time. Of 120 retrieved articles, 84 were included from 22 countries (September 2003–January 2019), totalling 14012 patients. Design was prospective in 44/84 studies (52%); in 70/84 articles (83%), a General Electric unit with factory-set kVp was used. Per-view average glandular dose, reported in 12/84 studies (14%), ranged 0.43–2.65 mGy. Contrast type/concentration was reported in 79/84 studies (94%), with Iohexol 350 mgI/mL mostly used (25/79, 32%), dose and flow rate in 72/84 (86%), with 1.5 mL/kg dose at 3 mL/s in 62/72 studies (86%). Injection was described in 69/84 articles (82%), automated in 59/69 (85%), manual in 10/69 (15%) and flush in 35/84 (42%), with 10–30 mL dose in 19/35 (54%). An examination time < 10 min was reported in 65/84 studies (77%), 120 s acquisition delay in 65/84 (77%) and order of views in 42/84 (50%) studies, beginning with the craniocaudal view of the non-suspected breast in 7/42 (17%). Thirty ARs were reported by 14/84 (17%) studies (26 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe non-fatal) with a pooled rate of 0.82% (fixed-effect model). Only half of CESM studies were prospective; factory-set kVp, contrast 1.5 mL/kg at 3 mL/s and 120 s acquisition delay were mostly used; only 1 severe AR was reported. CESM protocol standardisation is advisable.

show abstract

“…According to the 5th edition of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas, there is a well-defined and standardised lexicon of morphology descriptors to characterise breast lesions on DCE-MRI; however, there is no similar lexicon for CESM and so a standardised lexicon of morphology descriptors for CESM should be devised. 8 As both CESM and MRI breast imaging methods are contrast medium based, the morphology descriptors of MRI were used in the present study to describe the features of the postoperative breast on the CESM images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the evaluation of the postoperative breast cancer

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?

Cited by 53 publications

References 16 publications

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries

Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review

The role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the evaluation of the postoperative breast cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About