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
  • [41] Diagnostic performance of perilesional radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions
    Wang, Simin
    Sun, Yuqi
    Li, Ruimin
    Mao, Ning
    Li, Qin
    Jiang, Tingting
    Chen, Qianqian
    Duan, Shaofeng
    Xie, Haizhu
    Gu, Yajia
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2022, 32 (01) : 639 - 649
  • [42] Contrast-enhanced mammography
    Fallenberg, Eva M.
    RADIOLOGE, 2021, 61 (02): : 177 - 182
  • [43] Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in the Evaluation of Breast Microcalcifications: Controversies and Diagnostic Management
    Nicosia, Luca
    Bozzini, Anna Carla
    Signorelli, Giulia
    Palma, Simone
    Pesapane, Filippo
    Frassoni, Samuele
    Bagnardi, Vincenzo
    Pizzamiglio, Maria
    Farina, Mariagiorgia
    Trentin, Chiara
    Penco, Silvia
    Meneghetti, Lorenza
    Sangalli, Claudia
    Cassano, Enrico
    HEALTHCARE, 2023, 11 (04)
  • [44] Is the Level of Contrast Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Associated with the Presence and Biological Aggressiveness of Breast Cancer?
    Marzogi, Alaa
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    Kapetas, Panagiotis
    Milos, Ruxandra I.
    Bernathova, Maria
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Clauser, Paola
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (04)
  • [45] Radiomic Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Predicting Breast Cancer Histological Outcome
    La Forgia, Daniele
    Fanizzi, Annarita
    Campobasso, Francesco
    Bellotti, Roberto
    Didonna, Vittorio
    Lorusso, Vito
    Moschetta, Marco
    Massafra, Raffaella
    Tamborra, Pasquale
    Tangaro, Sabina
    Telegrafo, Michele
    Pastena, Maria Irene
    Zito, Alfredo
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2020, 10 (09)
  • [46] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme
    Lobbes, Marc B. I.
    Lalji, Ulrich
    Houwers, Janneke
    Nijssen, Estelle C.
    Nelemans, Patty J.
    van Roozendaal, Lori
    Smidt, Marjolein L.
    Heuts, Esther
    Wildberger, Joachim E.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (07) : 1668 - 1676
  • [47] Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer
    Girometti, Rossano
    Linda, Anna
    Conte, Paola
    Lorenzon, Michele
    De Serio, Isabella
    Jerman, Katerina
    Londero, Viviana
    Zuiani, Chiara
    RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 2021, 126 (11): : 1407 - 1414
  • [48] Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Guide to Setting Up a New Clinical Program
    Kim, Geunwon
    Patel, Bhavika
    Mehta, Tejas S.
    Du, Linda
    Mehta, Rashmi J.
    Phillips, Jordana
    JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2021, 3 (03) : 369 - 376
  • [49] Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Radiomics Analysis for Preoperative Prediction of Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes
    Zhu, Shuangshuang
    Wang, Simin
    Guo, Sailing
    Wu, Ruoxi
    Zhang, Jinggang
    Kong, Mengyu
    Pan, Liang
    Gu, Yajia
    Yu, Shengnan
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2024, 31 (06) : 2228 - 2238
  • [50] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)
    James, J. J.
    Tennant, S. L.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 73 (08) : 715 - 723