Contrast-enhanced mammography in the management of breast architectural distortions and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies

被引:1
|
作者
Bellini, Chiara [1 ]
Pugliese, Francesca [1 ]
Bicchierai, Giulia [1 ]
Amato, Francesco [2 ]
De Benedetto, Diego [1 ]
Di Naro, Federica [1 ]
Boeri, Cecilia [1 ]
Vanzi, Ermanno [1 ]
Migliaro, Giuliano [1 ]
Incardona, Ludovica [1 ]
Tommasi, Cinzia [3 ]
Orzalesi, Lorenzo [3 ]
Miele, Vittorio [4 ]
Nori, Jacopo [1 ]
机构
[1] Azienda Osped Univ Careggi, Dept Radiol, Breast Imaging Unit, Florence, Italy
[2] Osped San Giovanni Dio, Dept Radiol, Breast Imaging Unit, Agrigento, Italy
[3] Azienda Osped Univ Careggi, Breast Surg Unit, Florence, Italy
[4] Azienda Osped Univ Careggi, Dept Radiol, Florence, Italy
关键词
Breast cancer; CEM; Distortions; FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CORE NEEDLE-BIOPSY; SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS; OUTCOMES; MRI; METAANALYSIS; MALIGNANCY; IMAGES; OCCULT;
D O I
10.1007/s12282-024-01599-x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundTo assess contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the management of BI-RADS3 breast architectural distortions (AD) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 328 women with 332 ADs detected on DBT between 2017 and 2021 and selected those classified as BI-RADS3 receiving CEM as problem-solving. In CEM recombined images, we evaluated AD's contrast enhancement (CE) according to its presence/absence, type, and size. AD with enhancement underwent imaging-guided biopsy while AD without enhancement follow-up or biopsy if detected in high/intermediate-risk women.ResultsAD with enhancement were 174 (52.4%): 72 (41.4%) were malignant lesions, 102 (59.6%) false positive results: 28 (16%) B3 lesions, and 74 (42.5%) benign lesions. AD without enhancement were 158 (47.6%): 26 (16.5%) were subjected to biopsy (1 malignant and 25 benign) while the other 132 cases were sent to imaging follow-up, still negative after two years. CEM's sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracy were 98.63%, 60.62%, 41.38%, 99.37%, and 68.98%. The AUC determined by ROC was 0.796 (95% CI, 0.749-0.844).ConclusionCEM has high sensitivity and NPV in evaluating BI-RADS3 AD and can be a complementary tool in assessing AD, avoiding unnecessary biopsies without compromising cancer detection.
引用
收藏
页码:851 / 857
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Future of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
    Covington, Matthew F.
    Pizzitola, Victor J.
    Lorans, Roxanne
    Pockaj, Barbara A.
    Northfelt, Donald W.
    Appleton, Catherine M.
    Patel, Bhavika K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (02) : 292 - 300
  • [2] Evaluation of architectural distortion with contrast-enhanced mammography
    Goh, Y.
    Quek, S. T.
    Pillay, P.
    Chou, C. -P.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2024, 79 (03) : 163 - 169
  • [3] Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening
    Coffey, Kristen
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 156
  • [4] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation, Performance, and Use for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening
    Covington, Matthew F.
    RADIOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2021, 59 (01) : 113 - 128
  • [5] Contrast-enhanced mammography in the evaluation of breast calcifications: preliminary experience
    Depretto, Catherine
    Borelli, Anna
    Liguori, Alessandro
    Presti, Gabriele
    Vingiani, Andrea
    Cartia, Francesco
    Ferranti, Claudio
    Scaperrotta, Gianfranco P.
    TUMORI JOURNAL, 2020, 106 (06): : 491 - 496
  • [6] Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer
    Ali-Mucheru, Mariam
    Pockaj, Barbara
    Patel, Bhavika
    Pizzitola, Victor
    Wasif, Nabil
    Stucky, Chee-Chee
    Gray, Richard
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 23 : S649 - S655
  • [7] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review
    Lewin, John M.
    Patel, Bhavika K.
    Tanna, Aneri
    JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2020, 2 (01) : 7 - 15
  • [8] Use of contrast-enhanced mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer
    Fischer, Uwe
    Diekmann, Felix
    Helbich, Thomas
    Preibsch, Heike
    Puesken, Michael
    Wenkel, Evelyn
    Wienbeck, Susanne
    Fallenberg, Eva Maria
    RADIOLOGIE, 2023, 63 (12): : 916 - 924
  • [9] Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis-Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI
    Chou, Chen-Pin
    Lewin, John M.
    Chiang, Chia-Ling
    Hung, Bao-Hui
    Yang, Tsung-Lung
    Huang, Jer-Shyung
    Liao, Jia-Bin
    Pan, Huay-Ben
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 84 (12) : 2501 - 2508
  • [10] Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance
    Elder, Kenneth
    Matheson, Julia
    Nickson, Carolyn
    Box, Georgia
    Ellis, Jennifer
    Mou, Arlene
    Shadbolt, Clair
    Park, Allan
    Tay, Jia
    Rose, Allison
    Mann, Gregory Bruce
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2023, 199 (02) : 221 - 230