Diagnostic Value of Qualitative and Quantitative Enhancement Parameters on Contrast-enhanced Mammography

Overview

Journal Diagn Interv Radiol

Publisher Galenos Publishing House

Date 2024 Apr 15

PMID 38619006

Authors

Musa Kul

Selcuk Akkaya

Sibel Kul

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether qualitative and quantitative enhancement parameters obtained from contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) can be used in predicting malignancy.

Methods: After review board approval, consecutive 136 suspicious lesions with definite diagnosis were retrospectively analyzed on CEM. Acquisition was routinely started with craniocaudal view and ended with mediolateral oblique view of the affected breast. Lesion conspicuity (low, moderate, high), internal enhancement pattern (homogeneous, heterogeneous, rim), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), percentage of signal difference (PSD) and relative enhancement from early to late view were analyzed. PSD and relative enhancements were used to determine patterns of descending, steady or ascending enhancements. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, Cohen's kappa statistics and Spearman correlation tests were used.

Results: There were 29 benign and 107 malignant lesions. 64% of the malignant lesions exhibited high conspicuity compared to 14% of the benign lesions ( < 0.001). CNR values were higher in malignant lesions compared to benign ones ( ≤ 0.004). CNR from early view yielded 82% sensitivity, 72% specificity and PSD yielded 79% sensitivity, 65% specificity. Descending pattern and rim enhancement observed in 44% and 21% of breast cancers, respectively, and both provided 96% positive predictive value for malignancy.

Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative parameters was higher than that of qualitative parameters. High CNR, rim enhancement, and descending pattern were features commonly seen in malignant lesions, while low CNR, homogeneous enhancement, and ascending pattern were commonly seen in benign lesions.

References

Kamal R, Helal M, Mansour S, Haggag M, Nada O, Farahat I . Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?. Br J Radiol. 2016; 89(1064):20160157. PMC: 5124889. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160157. View

Kim J, Kim S, Kim Y, Kang B, Yi An Y, Lee A . Enhancement parameters on dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI: do they correlate with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers?. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014; 33(1):72-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2014.08.034. View

Rong X, Kang Y, Xue J, Han P, Guang Y, Li Z . Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: are kinetic patterns useful for differential diagnoses of enhanced lesions?. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023; 29(2):244-250. PMC: 10679705. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2022.21562. View

Nam S, Ko E, Lim Y, Han B, Ko E, Choi J . Preoperative dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging kinetic features using computer-aided diagnosis: Association with survival outcome and tumor aggressiveness in patients with invasive breast cancer. PLoS One. 2018; 13(4):e0195756. PMC: 5896992. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195756. View

Kim J, Kim J, Hwangbo L, Suh H, Kim S, Choo K . Kinetic Heterogeneity of Breast Cancer Determined Using Computer-aided Diagnosis of Preoperative MRI Scans: Relationship to Distant Metastasis-Free Survival. Radiology. 2020; 295(3):517-526. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020192039. View

Lalji U, Jeukens C, Houben I, Nelemans P, van Engen R, van Wylick E . Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25(10):2813-20. PMC: 4562003. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2. View

James J, Tennant S . Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Clin Radiol. 2018; 73(8):715-723. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.05.005. View

Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu M, Rochard F, Opolon P . Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187(5):W528-37. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.1944. View

Perry H, Phillips J, Dialani V, Slanetz P, Fein-Zachary V, Karimova E . Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Guide to Interpretation and Reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 212(1):222-231. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19265. View

10.

Deng C, Juan Y, Cheung Y, Lin Y, Lo Y, Lin G . Quantitative analysis of enhanced malignant and benign lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Br J Radiol. 2018; 91(1086):20170605. PMC: 6223273. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170605. View

11.

Francescone M, Jochelson M, Dershaw D, Sung J, Hughes M, Zheng J . Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83(8):1350-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.015. View

12.

Jong R, Yaffe M, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak R, Danjoux N, Gunesekara A . Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003; 228(3):842-50. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2283020961. View

13.

Wang C, Wei W, Santiago L, Whitman G, Dogan B . Can imaging kinetic parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging be valuable in predicting clinicopathological prognostic factors of invasive breast cancer?. Acta Radiol. 2017; 59(7):813-821. DOI: 10.1177/0284185117740746. View

14.

Song S, Cho K, Seo B, Woo O, Jung S, Sung D . Kinetic Features of Invasive Breast Cancers on Computer-Aided Diagnosis Using 3T MRI Data: Correlation with Clinical and Pathologic Prognostic Factors. Korean J Radiol. 2019; 20(3):411-421. PMC: 6389817. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.0587. View

15.

Luczynska E, Niemiec J, Hendrick E, Heinze S, Jaszczynski J, Jakubowicz 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. PMC: 5077289. DOI: 10.12659/msm.900371. View

16.

Kuhl C, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J . Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?. Radiology. 1999; 211(1):101-10. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101. View

17.

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 (Baltimore). 2020; 99(37):e22097. PMC: 7489654. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022097. View

18.

Rudnicki W, Heinze S, Niemiec J, Kojs Z, Sas-Korczynska B, Hendrick E . Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology-preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(11):6220-6226. PMC: 6795639. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06232-6. View

19.

Rudnicki W, Heinze S, Popiela T, Kojs Z, Luczynska E . Quantitative Assessment of Contrast Enhancement on Contrast Enhancement Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Comparison With Qualitative Assessment. Anticancer Res. 2020; 40(5):2925-2932. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14270. View

20.

Polat D, Evans W, Dogan B . Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography: Technique, Clinical Applications, and Pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 215(5):1267-1278. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22412. View