Citations 56

Quantitative Imaging System for Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Planning: An Interdisciplinary Approach

The Operations Research Revolution | October 4, 2017 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: 152-175

10.1287/educ.2017.0173

A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging to axillary ultrasound in the detection of axillary nodal metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer

The Breast Journal | April 10, 2017 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 647-655

10.1111/tbj.12812 | PMID 28397344

Potential Cost Savings of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography

American Journal of Roentgenology | April 5, 2017 | Volume: 208 | Issue: 6 | Pages: W231-W237

10.2214/ajr.16.17239 | PMID 28379734

Can adding contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to diagnostic mammography/US help decrease biopsy rates in women with suspicious (BIRADS 4) breast lesions?

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 33 | Issue: 28_suppl | Pages: 6-6

10.1200/jco.2015.33.28_suppl.6

6 Background: Traditional screening mammography (MG) enables early detection of breast cancer and therefore results in decreased mortality. Mammography, however, is an imperfect tool and limited by an overall sensitivity of 75-85%. Specificity is limited as well resulting in many false-positive examinations and unnecessary follow-up examinations. The recent development of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has made the usage of IV contrast enhancement with mammography a possibility. CEDM is an angiographic technique that uses digital subtraction, which removes the normal mammary gland on images in order to detect breast tumors and visualize their vascularity. The literature is promising with regard to CEDM as studies have found that CEDM achieves increased sensitivity without reductions in specificity in comparison to MG, US and/or MRI. Methods: In this multi-reader study we compared the diagnostic accuracy of CEDM as an adjunct to MG/US in patients with suspicious findings (BI-RADS 4). The study population included 31 patients who were imaged with CEDM prior to their scheduled US or stereotactic-guided biopsy. We compared the relative performance of MG/US alone versus MG/US/CEDM in determining the probability of malignancy. Histology served as the gold standard. Results: See table below. Conclusions: The addition of CEDM to the workup of suspected lesions on MG and/or US preliminarily decreases the number of false-positive MG thereby with potential to reduce cost and unnecessary patient harm. [Table: see text]
Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography

American Journal of Roentgenology | January 23, 2017 | Volume: 208 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 362-372

10.2214/ajr.16.16743 | PMID 28112559

Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography: A Single-Institution Experience of the First 208 Cases

The Breast Journal | October 7, 2016 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 67-76

10.1111/tbj.12681 | PMID 27696576