Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Women with Palpable Breast Abnormalities

被引:0
作者
Amir, Tali [1 ]
Pinker, Katja [1 ]
Sevilimedu, Varadan [2 ]
Hughes, Mary [1 ]
Keating, Delia T. [1 ]
Sung, Janice S. [1 ]
Jochelson, Maxine S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, New York, NY 10017 USA
关键词
Mammography; Ultrasonography; Contrast-enhanced mammography; SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; ULTRASOUND; ACCURACY; CANCER;
D O I
10.1016/j.acra.2023.10.027
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Rationale and Objectives: To examine the role of contrast -enhanced mammography (CEM) in the work -up of palpable breast abnormalities. Materials and Methods: In this single -center combination prospective -retrospective study, women with palpable breast abnormalities underwent CEM evaluation prospectively, comprising the acquisition of low energy (LE) images and recombined images (RI) which depict enhancement, followed by targeted ultrasound (US). Two independent readers retrospectively reviewed the imaging and assigned BI-RADS assessment based on LE alone, LE plus US, RI with LE plus US (CEM plus US), and RI alone. Pathology results or 1year follow-up imaging served as the reference standard. Results: 237 women with 262 palpable abnormalities were included (mean age, 51 years). Of the 262 palpable abnormalities, 116/262 (44%) had no imaging correlate and 242/262 (92%) were benign. RI alone had better specificity compared to LE plus US (Reader 1, 94% versus 89% (p = 0.009); Reader 2, 93% versus 88% (p = 0.03)), better positive predictive value (Reader 1, 52% versus 42% (p = 0.04); Reader 2, 53% versus 42% (p = 0.04)), and better accuracy (Reader 1, 93% versus 89% (p = 0.05); Reader 2, 93% versus 90% (p = 0.06)). CEM plus US was not significantly different in performance metrics versus LE plus US. Conclusion: RI had better specificity compared to LE in combination with US. There was no difference in performance between CEM plus US and LE plus US, likely reflecting the weight US carries in radiologist decision -making. However, the results indicate that the absence of enhancement on RI in the setting of palpable lesions may help avoid benign biopsies. (c) 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1231 / 1238
页数:8
相关论文
共 19 条
  • [1] Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk
    Berg, Wendie A.
    Zhang, Zheng
    Lehrer, Daniel
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Pisano, Etta D.
    Barr, Richard G.
    Boehm-Velez, Marcela
    Mahoney, Mary C.
    Evans, W. Phil, III
    Larsen, Linda H.
    Morton, Marilyn J.
    Mendelson, Ellen B.
    Farria, Dione M.
    Cormack, Jean B.
    Marques, Helga S.
    Adams, Amanda
    Yeh, Nolin M.
    Gabrielli, Glenna
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13): : 1394 - 1404
  • [2] Clinical Value of Mammography in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lumps in Women 30 Years Old and Older
    Brown, Ann L.
    Phillips, Jordana
    Slanetz, Priscilla J.
    Fein-Zachary, Valerie
    Venkataraman, Shambhavi
    Dialani, Vandana
    Mehta, Tejas S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 209 (04) : 935 - 942
  • [3] Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years
    Buist, DSM
    Porter, PL
    Lehman, C
    Taplin, SH
    White, E
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (19): : 1432 - 1440
  • [4] Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
  • [5] False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses
    Chan, Carlos H. F.
    Coopey, Suzanne B.
    Freer, Phoebe E.
    Hughes, Kevin S.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2015, 153 (03) : 699 - 702
  • [6] Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis
    Cheung, Yun-Chung
    Lin, Yu-Ching
    Wan, Yung-Liang
    Yeow, Kee-Min
    Huang, Pei-Chin
    Lo, Yung-Feng
    Tsai, Hsiu-Pei
    Ueng, Shir-Hwa
    Chang, Chee-Jen
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (10) : 2394 - 2403
  • [7] Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study
    Dromain, Clarisse
    Thibault, Fabienne
    Diekmann, Felix
    Fallenberg, Eva M.
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Koomen, Marcia
    Hendrick, R. Edward
    Tardivon, Anne
    Toledano, Alicia
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2012, 14 (03):
  • [8] Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results
    Dromain, Clarisse
    Thibault, Fabienne
    Muller, Serge
    Rimareix, Francoise
    Delaloge, Suzette
    Tardivon, Anne
    Balleyguier, Corinne
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2011, 21 (03) : 565 - 574
  • [9] Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM)
    Francescone, Mark A.
    Jochelson, Maxine S.
    Dershaw, D. David
    Sung, Janice S.
    Hughes, Mary C.
    Zheng, Junting
    Moskowitz, Chaya
    Morris, Elizabeth A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2014, 83 (08) : 1350 - 1355
  • [10] Imaging Management of Palpable Breast Abnormalities
    Lehman, Constance D.
    Lee, Amie Y.
    Lee, Christoph I.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 203 (05) : 1142 - 1153