Advertisement

CEDM Lexicon and Imaging Interpretation Tips

  • Giulia Bicchierai
  • Federica Di Naro
  • Francesco Amato
Chapter

Abstract

Different patterns of contrast uptake and the morphology descriptors of enhancing lesions observed by CEDM are still under study; however, based on our experience and data published in the international literature, the use of a well-defined and standardized lexicon similar to the MRI BI-RADS lexicon instituted by the American College of Radiology (ACR) is recommended to characterize breast lesions by CEDM. As in MRI, CEDM classifies the lesions seen in subtracted images into three main groups: focus, mass and non-mass enhancement. In this chapter, we will demonstrate how we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon to CEDM and discuss the main differences between the two methods.

Keywords

CEDM lexicon Mass lesion Focus Non-mass enhancement Kinetic enhancement Imaging interpretation 

References

  1. 1.
    Morris EA, Comstock CE, Lee CH, et al. ACR BI-RADS® magnetic resonance imaging. In: D’Orsi CJ, editor. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mohamed Kamal R, Hussien Helal M, Wessam R, Mahmoud Mansour S, Godda I, Alieldin N. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: impact of the qualitative morphology descriptors on the diagnosis of breast lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(6):1049–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamal RM, Helal MH, Mansour SM, et al. Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? Br J Radiol. 2016;12:20160157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knogler T, et al. Application of BI-RADS descriptors in contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography: comparison with MRI. Breast Care (Basel). 2017;12(4):212–6.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000478899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast imaging reporting and data system inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Timmers JMH, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM, van Tinteren H, Visser O, Verbeek ALM, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1717–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuczyriska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E, Dyczek S, Herman K, Blecharz P, et al. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1358–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhl C. Concepts for differential diagnosis in breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:305–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Millet I, Pages E, Hoa D, Merigeaud S, Doyon FC, Prat X, et al. Pearls and pitfalls in breast MRI. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:426–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, De Angelis GA, De Bruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast mr imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238:42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K. Positive and negative predictive values of BI-RADS-MRI descriptors for focal breast masses. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2006;5:7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, Langlotz CP, Orel SG, Sullivan D, et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR Imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agrawal G, et al. Significance of breast lesion descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon. Cancer. 2009;115(7):1363–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K. Breast MRI using the VIBE sequence: clustered ring enhancement in the differential diagnosis of lesions showing non-masslike enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, Setoguchi T, Okafuji T, Soeda H, et al. Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:e126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    El Khoury M, Lalonde L, David J, Labelle M, Mesurolle B, Trop I. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon for breast MRI: interobserver variability in the de- scription and assignment of BI-RADS cate- gory. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:71–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gity M, Moghadam KG, Halali AH, Shakiba M. Association of different MRI BI-RADS descrip- tors with malignancy in non mass-like breast lesions. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014;16:e26040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahoney MC, Gatsonis C, Hanna L, DeMartini WB, Lehman C. Positive predictive values of BI-RADS MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;264:51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewin J, Larke F, Hendrick RE. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: development and clinical results of a new technique for breast cancer detection. Radiology. 2001;221:339.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dromain C, Balleyguier C. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. In: Bick U, Diekman F, editors. Digital mammography. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekman F, Engelken F, Krohn M, Singh JM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumor size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morris EA. Illustrated breast MR lexicon. Semin Roentgenol. 2001;36:238–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Łuczyńska E, Niemiec J, Hendrick E, et al. Degree of enhancement on contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and lesion type on mammography (MG): comparison based on histological results. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22:3886–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giulia Bicchierai
    • 1
  • Federica Di Naro
    • 1
  • Francesco Amato
    • 1
  1. 1.Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of RadiologyAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria CareggiFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations