Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study

被引:29
作者
Clauser, Paola [1 ]
Baltzer, Pascal A. T. [1 ]
Kapetas, Panagiotis [1 ]
Hoernig, Mathias [2 ]
Weber, Michael [3 ]
Leone, Federica [4 ]
Bernathova, Maria [1 ]
Helbich, Thomas H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Vienna, Dept Biomed Imaging & Image Guided Therapy, Vienna, Austria
[2] Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Diagnost Imaging, Forchheim, Germany
[3] Med Univ Vienna, Div Gen & Pediat Radiol, Dept Biomed Imaging & Image Guided Therapy, Vienna, Austria
[4] ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Osped Fatebenefrateli & Oftalm, Milan, Italy
关键词
contrast-enhanced mammography; contrast-enhanced MRI; breast cancer; radiation dose; SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; CANCER; WOMEN; CESM; RECOMMENDATIONS; RISK;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.27079
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 MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast. Study Type Prospective, single center. Population Women with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included. Field Strength/Sequence 1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype. Assessment Three, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard. Statistical Test Lesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics. Results Included were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years +/- 11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%,P= 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%,P= 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%,P= 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%,P= 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%,P= 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%,P= 0.514). Data Conclusion L-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI Level of Evidence 1 Technical Efficacy Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.
引用
收藏
页码:589 / 595
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   New diagnostic tools for breast cancer [J].
Baltzer P.A.T. ;
Kapetas P. ;
Marino M.A. ;
Clauser P. .
memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology, 2017, 10 (3) :175-180
[2]  
Bemelmans F, LECT NOTES COMPUTER, V9699
[3]   Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data [J].
Boone, JM .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (05) :869-875
[4]   Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis-Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI [J].
Chou, Chen-Pin ;
Lewin, John M. ;
Chiang, Chia-Ling ;
Hung, Bao-Hui ;
Yang, Tsung-Lung ;
Huang, Jer-Shyung ;
Liao, Jia-Bin ;
Pan, Huay-Ben .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 84 (12) :2501-2508
[5]   A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice [J].
Clauser, Paola ;
Mann, Ritse ;
Athanasiou, Alexandra ;
Prosch, Helmut ;
Pinker, Katja ;
Dietzel, Matthias ;
Helbich, Thomas H. ;
Fuchsjaeger, Michael ;
Camps-Herrero, Julia ;
Sardanelli, Francesco ;
Forrai, Gabor ;
Baltzer, Pascal A. T. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (05) :1909-1918
[6]  
D'Orsi Carl J, 2013, ACR BI RADS ATLAS BR
[7]  
Danilovic D, PRIME ENABLING GRIDL
[8]   Does higher field strength translate into better diagnostic accuracy? A prospective comparison of breast MRI at 3 and 1.5 Tesla [J].
Dietzel, Matthias ;
Wenkel, Evelyn ;
Hammon, Matthias ;
Clauser, Paola ;
Uder, Michael ;
Schulz-Wendtland, Rudiger ;
Baltzer, Pascal A. T. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 114 :51-56
[9]   Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study [J].
Dromain, Clarisse ;
Thibault, Fabienne ;
Diekmann, Felix ;
Fallenberg, Eva M. ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Koomen, Marcia ;
Hendrick, R. Edward ;
Tardivon, Anne ;
Toledano, Alicia .
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2012, 14 (03)
[10]   Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation [J].
Fallenberg, Eva M. ;
Schmitzberger, Florian F. ;
Amer, Heba ;
Ingold-Heppner, Barbara ;
Balleyguier, Corinne ;
Diekmann, Felix ;
Engelken, Florian ;
Mann, Ritse M. ;
Renz, Diane M. ;
Bick, Ulrich ;
Hamm, Bernd ;
Dromain, Clarisse .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (07) :2752-2764