Predicting Malignancy of Breast Imaging Findings Using Quantitative Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)

被引:1
|
作者
Miller, Matthew M. [1 ]
Rubaiyat, Abu Hasnat Mohammad [2 ]
Rohde, Gustavo K. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Virginia Hlth Syst, Dept Radiol & Med Imaging, 1215 Lee St, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
[2] Univ Virginia, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, 415 Lane Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
[3] Univ Virginia, Dept Biomed Engn, 415 Lane Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
关键词
mammography; radiographic image enhancement; contrast media; computer-assisted image processing; SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGENOMIC ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR SUBTYPES; CANCER MORTALITY; MRI; PERFORMANCE; FEATURES; IMPACT;
D O I
10.3390/diagnostics13061129
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
We sought to develop new quantitative approaches to characterize the spatial distribution of mammographic density and contrast enhancement of suspicious contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) findings to improve malignant vs. benign classifications of breast lesions. We retrospectively analyzed all breast lesions that underwent CEM imaging and tissue sampling at our institution from 2014-2020 in this IRB-approved study. A penalized linear discriminant analysis was used to classify lesions based on the averaged histograms of radial distributions of mammographic density and contrast enhancement. T-tests were used to compare the classification accuracies of density, contrast, and concatenated density and contrast histograms. Logistic regression and AUC-ROC analyses were used to assess if adding demographic and clinical data improved the model accuracy. A total of 159 suspicious findings were evaluated. Density histograms were more accurate in classifying lesions as malignant or benign than a random classifier (62.37% vs. 48%; p < 0.001), but the concatenated density and contrast histograms demonstrated a higher accuracy (71.25%; p < 0.001) than the density histograms alone. Including the demographic and clinical data in our models led to a higher AUC-ROC than concatenated density and contrast images (0.81 vs. 0.70; p < 0.001). In the classification of invasive vs. non-invasive malignancy, the concatenated density and contrast histograms demonstrated no significant improvement in accuracy over the density histograms alone (77.63% vs. 78.59%; p = 0.504). Our findings suggest that quantitative differences in the radial distribution of mammographic density could be used to discriminate malignant from benign breast findings; however, classification accuracy was significantly improved with the addition of contrast-enhanced imaging data from CEM. Adding patient demographic and clinical information further improved the classification accuracy.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Reply to "Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Technique on the Efficacy of CEM-Guided Biopsy"
    Morris, Michael F.
    Summers, Danielle
    Welk, Leslie A.
    Harrison, Molly
    Johnston, Brian
    Loving, Vilert A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2025, 224 (01)
  • [32] Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Bartolovic, Nina
    Peterko, Ana Car
    Avirovic, Manuela
    Ritosa, Doris Segota
    Dujmic, Emina Grgurevic
    Zujic, Petra Valkovic
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2024, 14 (14)
  • [33] Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Potsch, Nina
    Vatteroni, Giulia
    Clauser, Paola
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    RADIOLOGY, 2022, 305 (01) : 93 - 105
  • [34] Implementing the advantages of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced breast MRI in breast cancer staging
    Fallenberg, Eva M.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2025, 35 (01) : 160 - 162
  • [35] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings
    Sorin, Vera
    Faermann, Renata
    Yagil, Yael
    Shalmon, Anat
    Gotlieb, Michael
    Halshtok-Neiman, Osnat
    Ben-David, Merav A.
    Sklair-Levy, Miri
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2020, 61 : 99 - 105
  • [36] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings
    Sorin, Vera
    Faermann, Renata
    Yagil, Yael
    Shalmon, Anat
    Gotlieb, Michael
    Halshtok-Neiman, Osnat
    Ben-David, Merav A.
    Sklair-Levy, Miri
    Sorin, Vera (Vera.Sorin@sheba.health.gov.il), 1600, Elsevier Inc. (61): : 99 - 105
  • [37] Quantitative analysis of enhanced malignant and benign lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
    Deng, Chih-Ying
    Juan, Yu-Hsiang
    Cheung, Yun-Chung
    Lin, Yu-Ching
    Lo, Yung-Feng
    Lin, Gigin
    Chen, Shin-Chen
    Ng, Shu-Hang
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 91 (1086):
  • [38] Added value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in staging of malignant breast lesions-a feasibility study
    Ahsberg, Kristina
    Gardfjell, Anna
    Nimeus, Emma
    Rasmussen, Rogvi
    Behmer, Catharina
    Zackrisson, Sophia
    Ryden, Lisa
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 18 (01)
  • [39] Is contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) an alternative to MRI in assessing the response to primary systemic therapy of breast cancer?
    Sunen, Ines
    Barrado, Ana Isabel Garcia
    Ciria, Silvia Cruz
    Maroto, Julian Garcia
    Baneres, Belen Gros
    Mur, Carmen Garcia
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2024, 170
  • [40] Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging of breast cancer: The pro CEM perspective
    Lobbes, M. B., I
    Heuts, E. M.
    Moossdorff, M.
    van Nijnatten, T. J. A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 142