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
  • [31] Association between lesion enhancement and breast cancer in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
    Boy, Fatma Nur Soylu
    Goksu, Kamber
    Tasdelen, Iksan
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2023, 64 (01) : 74 - 79
  • [32] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Capability to Distinguish Molecular Breast Cancer Subtypes
    Luczynska, Elzbieta
    Piegza, Tomasz
    Szpor, Joanna
    Heinze, Sylwia
    Popiela, Tadeusz
    Kargol, Jaromir
    Rudnicki, Wojciech
    BIOMEDICINES, 2022, 10 (10)
  • [33] Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced mammography in the characterization of breast asymmetry
    Dawoud, Bassant Mahmoud
    Darweesh, Abdelmonem Nooman
    Hefeda, Mohamed Mohamed
    Kamal, Rasha Mohamed
    Younis, Rasha Lotfy
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2022, 53 (01)
  • [34] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Local Staging of Screen-Detected Breast Cancer
    MacCallum, Caroline
    Elder, Kenneth
    Nickson, Carolyn
    Ruecker, Kelly
    Park, Allan
    Mann, G. Bruce
    Rose, Allison K.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 31 (10) : 6820 - 6830
  • [35] Contrast-enhanced Mammography: How Does It Work?
    Sensakovic, William F.
    Carnahan, Molly B.
    Czaplicki, Christopher D.
    Fahrenholtz, Samuel
    Panda, Anshuman
    Zhou, Yuxiang
    Pavlicek, William
    Patel, Bhavika
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2021, 41 (03) : 829 - 839
  • [36] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature
    Hannsun, Gemmy
    Saponaro, Stephen
    Sylvan, Paul
    Elmi, Azadeh
    CURRENT RADIOLOGY REPORTS, 2021, 9 (11)
  • [37] Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future
    Sogani, Julie
    Mango, Victoria L.
    Keating, Delia
    Sung, Janice S.
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2021, 69 : 269 - 279
  • [38] A head-to-head comparison of breast lesion's conspicuity at contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI
    Santonocito, Ambra
    Zarcaro, Calogero
    Zeitouni, Layla
    Ferrara, Francesca
    Kapetas, Panagiotis
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Clauser, Paola
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, : 3070 - 3079
  • [39] Dynamic contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer and detection of tumor size
    Tekinhatun, Muhammed
    Sabir, Nuran
    Erdem, Ergun
    Yilmaz, Sevda
    Ufuk, Furkan
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2024, 54 (01) : 249 - 261
  • [40] 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)