Comparison of the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population

被引:0
作者
Grazynska, Anna [1 ]
Niewiadomska, Agnieszka [1 ]
Owczarek, Aleksander J. [2 ]
Winder, Mateusz [1 ]
Holda, Jakub [1 ,3 ]
Zwolinska, Olga [1 ]
Barczyk-Gutkowska, Anna [1 ]
Modlinska, Sandra [1 ]
Lorek, Andrzej [4 ]
Kuzbinska, Aleksandra [5 ]
Steinhof-Radwanska, Katarzyna [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Silesia, Dept Radiol & Nucl Med, 14 Medykow St, PL-40752 Katowice, Poland
[2] Med Univ Silesia, Dept Pathophysiol, Hlth Promot & Obes Management Unit, Katowice, Poland
[3] Jagiellonian Univ, Med Coll, Dept Anat, Krakow, Poland
[4] Prof Kornel Gibinski Independent Publ Cent Clin Ho, Dept Oncol Surg, Katowice, Poland
[5] Med Univ Silesia, Dept Pathomorfol, Katowice, Poland
关键词
breast cancer; breast density; contrast-enhanced mammography; extremely dense breasts; BACKGROUND PARENCHYMAL ENHANCEMENT; SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER; RISK; IMPACT; CESM;
D O I
10.5114/pjr/186180
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
Purpose : To assess the effectiveness of contrast -enhanced mammography (CEM) recombinant images in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all -densities population. Material and methods : 792 patients with 808 breast lesions, in whom the final decision on core -needle biopsy was made based on CEM, and who received the result of histopathological examination, were qualified for a single -centre, retrospective study. Patient electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed to establish demographics, clinical and imaging findings, and histopathology results. The CEM images were reassessed and assigned to the appropriate American College of Radiology (ACR) density categories. Results : Extremely dense breasts were present in 86 (10.9%) patients. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of malignant lesions in 52.6% of cases in the entire group of patients and 43% in the group of extremely dense breasts. CEM incorrectly classified the lesion as false negative in 16/425 (3.8%) cases for the whole group, and in 1/37 (2.7%) cases for extremely dense breasts. The sensitivity of CEM for the group of all patients was 96.2%, speci ficity - 60%, positive predictive values (PPV) - 72.8%, and negative predictive values (NPV) - 93.5%. In the group of patients with extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of the method was 97.3%, specificity - 59.2%, PPV - 64.3%, and NPV - 96.7%. Conclusions : CEM is characterised by high sensitivity and NPV in detecting malignant lesions regardless of the type of breast density. In patients with extremely dense breasts, CEM could serve as a complementary or additional examination in the absence or low availability of MRI.
引用
收藏
页码:e240 / e248
页数:9
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: update 2019
    Badve, Sunil S.
    Gokmen-Polar, Yesim
    [J]. PATHOLOGY, 2019, 51 (06) : 563 - 569
  • [2] Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast-a consensus and mission statement from the EUSOBI International Breast Diffusion-Weighted Imaging working group
    Baltzer, Pascal
    Mann, Ritse M.
    Iima, Mami
    Sigmund, Eric E.
    Clauser, Paola
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Martincich, Laura
    Partridge, Savannah C.
    Patterson, Andrew
    Pinker, Katja
    Thibault, Fabienne
    Camps-Herrero, Julia
    Le Bihan, Denis
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (03) : 1436 - 1450
  • [3] Mammographic density and breast cancer screening
    Bell, R. J.
    [J]. CLIMACTERIC, 2020, 23 (05) : 460 - 465
  • [4] Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer
    Boyd, Norman F.
    Guo, Helen
    Martin, Lisa J.
    Sun, Limei
    Stone, Jennifer
    Fishell, Eve
    Jong, Roberta A.
    Hislop, Greg
    Chiarelli, Anna
    Minkin, Salomon
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) : 227 - 236
  • [5] Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects
    Boyd, Norman F.
    Martin, Lisa J.
    Yaffe, Martin J.
    Minkin, Salomon
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2011, 13 (06)
  • [6] Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis
    Cheung, Yun-Chung
    Tsai, Hsiu-Pei
    Lo, Yung-Feng
    Ueng, Shir-Hwa
    Huang, Pei-Chin
    Chen, Shin-Chih
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2016, 26 (04) : 1082 - 1089
  • [7] Diffusion-weighted Imaging Allows for Downgrading MR BI-RADS 4 Lesions in Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Breast to Avoid Unnecessary Biopsy
    Clauser, Paola
    Krug, Barbara
    Bickel, Hubert
    Dietzel, Matthias
    Pinker, Katja
    Neuhaus, Victor-Frederic
    Marino, Maria Adele
    Moschetta, Marco
    Troiano, Nicoletta
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    [J]. CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2021, 27 (07) : 1941 - 1948
  • [8] Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Intraductal Papillomas: Typical Findings and Differential Diagnosis
    Dietzel, Matthias
    Kaiser, Clemens
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2015, 39 (02) : 176 - 184
  • [9] Impact of contrast-enhanced mammography in surgical management of breast cancers for women with dense breasts: a dual-center, multi-disciplinary study in Asia
    Goh, Yonggeng
    Chou, Chen-Pin
    Chan, Ching Wan
    Buhari, Shaik Ahmad
    Hartman, Mikael
    Tang, Siau Wei
    Ng, Celene Wei Qi
    Pillay, Premilla
    Chua, Wynne
    Jagmohan, Pooja
    Sterling, Eide
    Wong, Ying Mei
    Tan, Loon Ying
    Ong, Han Yang
    Pan, Huay-Ben
    Lee, Herng-Sheng
    Hung, Bao-Hui
    Quek, Swee Tian
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2022, 32 (12) : 8226 - 8237
  • [10] Papillary Lesions of the Breast: Addition of DWI and TIRM Sequences to Routine Breast MRI Could Help in Differentiation Benign from Malignant
    Gultekin, Mehmet Ali
    Yabul, Fatma Celik
    Temur, Hafize Otcu
    Sari, Lutfullah
    Yilmaz, Temel Fatih
    Toprak, Huseyin
    Yildiz, Seyma
    [J]. CURRENT MEDICAL IMAGING, 2022, 18 (09) : 962 - 969