Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance of automatic breast ultrasound and spectral mammography as complementary methods to mammography examination

被引:0
作者
Pawlak, Marta [1 ]
Rudnicki, Wojciech [2 ]
Popiela, Tadeusz [3 ]
Brandt, Lukasz [2 ]
Dobrowolska, Malgorzata [2 ]
Lipinska, Milena [1 ]
Luczynska, Elzbieta [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Cracow, Dept Radiol, Krakow, Poland
[2] Jagiellonian Univ Med Coll, Dept Electroradiol, 2 Jakubowskiego St, PL-30688 Krakow, Poland
[3] Jagiellonian Univ Med Coll, Chair Radiol, Krakow, Poland
关键词
mammography; breast cancer; CEM; ABUS; CONTRAST-ENHANCED MAMMOGRAPHY; FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CANCER; WOMEN; DENSITY; RISK; ANGIOGENESIS; SURVEILLANCE; MORTALITY; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.5114/pjr/199755
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: This single-centre study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS). The study involved 81 patients with focal breast lesions, who underwent ABUS, full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and CEM. Material and methods: A total of 169 focal lesions were found in 81 patients, of which 110 lesions were histopathologically verified, 92 were malignant, 5 were B3 lesions, and 13 were benign. On CEM 19 additional lesions not visible on other imaging examinations were found, and as many as 36 new lesions were detected on ABUS. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 106 from 169 on ABUS, 65 on FFDM, and 88 on CEM. The highest correlation between the lesion's margin and its histopathological character was found in FFDM (p < 0.00), then ABUS (p = 0.038), and the lowest in CEM (p = 0.043). Compliance in determining the lesions' size comparing to histopathology as a gold standard was the highest for ABUS (p = 0.258) and lower for CEM (p = 0.012). Results: The sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM, and CEM was, respectively: 80.43, 90.22, and 93.48; specificity: 27.78, 11.11, and 11.11; positive predictive value (PPV): 85.06, 83.84, and 84.31; negative predictive value (NPV): 21.74, 18.18, and 25; and accuracy: 71.82, 77.27, and 80. The sensitivity and accuracy of the combination of FFDM and ABUS were, respectively, 100 (p = 0.02) and 84.55 (AUC = 0.947) and for the combination of FFDM + CEM 93.48 (p = 0.25) and 79.09 (AUC = 0.855). Conclusions: The study confirms that both ABUS and CEM may serve as a valuable complementary method for FFDM.
引用
收藏
页码:e55 / e65
页数:11
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]   Tailored Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer: What Now and What Next? [J].
Berg, Wendie A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2009, 192 (02) :390-399
[2]   Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer [J].
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. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 356 (03) :227-236
[3]   Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk [J].
Brekelmans, CTM ;
Seynaeve, C ;
Bartels, CCM ;
Tilanus-Linthorst, MMA ;
Meijers-Heijboer, EJ ;
Crepin, CMG ;
van Geel, AN ;
Menke, M ;
Verhoog, LC ;
van den Ouweland, A ;
Obdeijn, IM ;
Klijn, JGM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 19 (04) :924-930
[4]   Assessing Improvement in Detection of Breast Cancer with Three-dimensional Automated Breast US in Women with Dense Breast Tissue: The Somoinsight Study [J].
Brem, Rachel F. ;
Tabar, Laszlo ;
Duffy, Stephen W. ;
Inciardi, Marc F. ;
Guingrich, Jessica A. ;
Hashimoto, Beverly E. ;
Lander, Marla R. ;
Lapidus, Robert L. ;
Peterson, Mary Kay ;
Rapelyea, Jocelyn A. ;
Roux, Susan ;
Schilling, Kathy J. ;
Shah, Biren A. ;
Torrente, Jessica ;
Wynn, Ralph T. ;
Miller, Dave P. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 274 (03) :663-673
[5]   Quantitative Analysis of Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Risk Stratification of Benign Versus Malignant Disease and Molecular Subtype [J].
Cain, Natalie ;
Rahbar, Guita ;
Park, Esther ;
Tang, Maxine ;
Andrews-Tang, Denise ;
Gupta, Esha ;
Roth, Antoinette ;
Lee-Felker, Stephanie ;
Thomas, Mariam .
JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2022, 4 (05) :496-505
[6]  
Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
[7]  
Chart PL, 1997, CAN MED ASSOC J, V157, P1235
[8]   Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis [J].
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 .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (10) :2394-2403
[9]   Effect of Baseline Breast Density on Breast Cancer Incidence, Stage, Mortality, and Screening Parameters: 25-Year Follow-up of a Swedish Mammographic Screening [J].
Chiu, Sherry Yueh-Hsia ;
Duffy, Stephen ;
Yen, Amy Ming-Fang ;
Tabar, Laszlo ;
Smith, Robert A. ;
Chen, Hsiu-Hsi .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2010, 19 (05) :1219-1228
[10]   State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography [J].
Covington, Matthew F. ;
Salmon, Samantha ;
Weaver, Bradley D. ;
Fajardo, Laurie L. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2024, 97 (1156) :695-704