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
  • [21] The emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography
    Cozzi, Andrea
    Schiaffino, Simone
    Sardanelli, Francesco
    QUANTITATIVE IMAGING IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY, 2019, 9 (12) : 2012 - 2018
  • [22] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Screening Women after Breast Conserving Surgery
    Gluskin, Jill
    Saccarelli, Carolina Rossi
    Avendano, Daly
    Marino, Maria Adele
    Bitencourt, Almir G., V
    Pilewskie, Melissa
    Sevilimedu, Varadan
    Sung, Janice S.
    Pinker, Katja
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    CANCERS, 2020, 12 (12) : 1 - 14
  • [23] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Reviewing the Past and Looking to the Future
    Woodard, Stefanie
    Murray, Adrian
    SEMINARS IN ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 57 (02) : 126 - 133
  • [24] Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Conventional Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study
    Kim, Geunwon
    Phillips, Jordana
    Cole, Elodia
    Brook, Alexander
    Mehta, Tejas
    Slanetz, Priscilla
    Fishman, Michael D. C.
    Karimova, Evguenia
    Mehta, Rashmi
    Loo, Parisa
    Resteghini, Nancy
    Raj, Sean
    Dialani, Vandana
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 16 (10) : 1456 - 1463
  • [25] Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Breast Imaging
    Lancaster, Rachael B.
    Gulla, Shannon
    De Los Santos, Jennifer
    Umphrey, Heidi R.
    SEMINARS IN ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 53 (04) : 294 - 300
  • [26] Review of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
    Lorente-Ramos, Rosa M.
    Azpeitia Arman, Javier
    CONTEMPORARY DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY, 2022, 45 (19)
  • [27] Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study
    Clauser, Paola
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    Kapetas, Panagiotis
    Hoernig, Mathias
    Weber, Michael
    Leone, Federica
    Bernathova, Maria
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2020, 52 (02) : 589 - 595
  • [28] Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast
    Patel, Bhavika K.
    Davis, John
    Ferraro, Christina
    Kosiorek, Heidi
    Hasselbach, Karl
    Ocal, Tolgay
    Pockaj, Barbara
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2018, 18 (06) : E1339 - E1345
  • [29] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
    Wong, Christopher Yung Yuen
    Lee, Shu Yi Sonia
    Mahmood, Rameysh Danovani
    SINGAPORE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 65 (03) : 195 - 201
  • [30] Comparison of Contrast Enhanced Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced Breast MR Imaging
    Lewin, John
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2018, 26 (02) : 259 - +