Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection

被引:0
作者
Horvat, Joao, V [1 ,3 ]
Amir, Tali [1 ]
Watt, Gordon P. [2 ,4 ]
Comstock, Christopher E. [1 ,5 ]
Nissan, Noam [1 ,6 ]
Jochelson, Maxine S. [1 ,7 ]
Sung, Janice S. [1 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, New York, NY 10065 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Epidemiol & Biostat, New York, NY USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Dept Radiol, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Netherlands Canc Inst, Div Psychosocial Res & Epidemiol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] New York Presbyterian, Weill Cornell Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, New York, NY USA
[6] Sheba Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Tel Hashomer, Israel
[7] Radnet Breastlink Womens Imaging Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, CA USA
[8] Columbia Univ, Dept Radiol, 161 Ft Washington Ave,Fl10,Suite 1052, New York, NY 10032 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DENSE BREASTS; WOMEN; MRI; RISK; ULTRASOUND; TOMOSYNTHESIS;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.242006
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
Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging modality that generates low-energy (LE) images that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that show lesion vascularity such as MRI. Supplemental whole-breast US increases cancer detection rates when performed with FFDM but not with MRI. Purpose: To compare the performance of CEM, LE images, and LE images supplemented with whole-breast US in breast cancer detection during screening. Materials and Methods: This prospective study recruited female participants from December 2014 to February 2019 who were scheduled for screening mammography and whole-breast US. CEM (including LE images and recombined images) and whole-breast US images were interpreted by separate breast radiologists blinded to the findings on images from the other modality. Statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and abnormal interpretation rate were assessed. Biopsy recommendation rate and PPVs of biopsies performed (PPV3) were calculated at the lesion level. Results: Across 468 participants (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-59 years]; all female participants), nine screen-detected cancers were diagnosed in eight participants: one cancer was depicted at LE imaging alone (cancer detection rate, 2.1 of 1000), four were depicted at LE imaging with whole-breast US (cancer detection rate, 8.5 of 1000), and eight were depicted at CEM (cancer detection rate, 17.1 of 1000; P < .05). The abnormal interpretation rate was 10.3% (48 of 468) for LE images, 13.7% (64 of 468) for LE images with whole-breast US, and 18.6% (87 of 468) for CEM (P < .001). The biopsy recommendation rate was 15.0 of 1000 for LE images, 38.4 of 1000 for LE images with whole-breast US, and 42.7 of 1000 for CEM. Seven biopsies were recommended based on LE images (PPV3 of one of seven [14.3%]), 18 biopsies based on LE images with whole-breast US (with a PPV3 of five of 18 [27.8%]), and 20 biopsies based on CEM (PPV3 of 9 of 20 [45.0%]). Conclusion: Breast cancer detection improved with CEM compared with LE images alone or LE images with whole-breast US.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technical feasibility and first outcomes [J].
Alcantara, R. ;
Posso, M. ;
Pitarch, M. ;
Arenas, N. ;
Ejarque, B. ;
Iotti, V ;
Besutti, G. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2023, 33 (01) :417-428
[2]   The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools [J].
Alotaibi, Batool S. ;
Alghamdi, Rahaf ;
Aljaman, Sadeem ;
Hariri, Reem A. ;
Althunayyan, Lama S. ;
Alsenan, Batool F. ;
Alnemer, Areej M. .
CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (01)
[3]  
Amir T, 2022, AJR Am J Roentgenol, V219, P1012
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470906514
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2023, U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool
[6]   Survival Outcomes of Screening with Breast MRI in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer [J].
Bae, Min Sun ;
Sung, Janice S. ;
Bernard-Davila, Blanca ;
Sutton, Elizabeth J. ;
Comstock, Christopher E. ;
Morris, Elizabeth A. .
JOURNAL OF BREAST IMAGING, 2020, 2 (01) :29-35
[7]   Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue [J].
Bakker, Marije F. ;
de Lange, Stephanie V. ;
Pijnappel, Ruud M. ;
Mann, Ritse M. ;
Peeters, Petra H. M. ;
Monninkhof, Evelyn M. ;
Emaus, Marleen J. ;
Loo, Claudette E. ;
Bisschops, Robertus H. C. ;
Lobbes, Marc B. I. ;
de Jong, Matthijn D. F. ;
Duvivier, Katya M. ;
Veltman, Jeroen ;
Karssemeijer, Nico ;
de Koning, Harry J. ;
van Diest, Paul J. ;
Mali, Willem P. T. M. ;
van den Bosch, Maurice A. A. J. ;
Veldhuis, Wouter B. ;
van Gils, Carla H. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2019, 381 (22) :2091-2102
[8]   Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Berg, Jeremy M. ;
Sickles, Edward A. ;
Burnside, Elizabeth S. ;
Zuley, Margarita L. ;
Rosenberg, Robert D. ;
Lee, Cindy S. .
RADIOLOGY, 2020, 296 (01) :32-41
[9]   Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk [J].
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 .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13) :1394-1404
[10]   Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions:: Detection and classification with high-resolution sonography [J].
Buchberger, W ;
Niehoff, A ;
Obrist, P ;
DeKoekkoek-Doll, P ;
Dünser, M .
SEMINARS IN ULTRASOUND CT AND MRI, 2000, 21 (04) :325-336