Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?

被引:4
作者
Siminiak, Natalia [1 ]
Pasiuk-Czepczynska, Anna [2 ]
Godlewska, Antonina [1 ]
Wojtys, Piotr [2 ]
Olejnik, Magdalena [2 ]
Michalak, Joanna [2 ]
Nowaczyk, Piotr [3 ]
Gajdzis, Pawel [2 ]
Godlewski, Dariusz [2 ]
Ruchala, Marek [1 ]
Czepczynski, Rafal [1 ]
机构
[1] Poznan Univ Med Sci, Dept Endocrinol Metab & Internal Dis, Poznan, Poland
[2] Canc Prevent & Epidemiol Ctr, Poznan, Poland
[3] Greater Poland Canc Ctr, Breast Surg Oncol Dept, Poznan, Poland
关键词
breast cancer; contrast enhanced mammography; digital breast tomography (DBT); mammography; imaging modalities;
D O I
10.3389/fonc.2022.941312
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
PurposeFull-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared.The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program. MethodsThe study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified. ResultsCEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM's AUC was 0.97 and DBT's 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23). ConclusionsIn this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study [J].
Cozzi, Andrea ;
Schiaffino, Simone ;
Fanizza, Marianna ;
Magni, Veronica ;
Menicagli, Laura ;
Monaco, Cristian Giuseppe ;
Benedek, Adrienn ;
Spinelli, Diana ;
Di Leo, Giovanni ;
Di Giulio, Giuseppe ;
Sardanelli, Francesco .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2022, 32 (11) :7388-7399
[2]   Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance [J].
Cozzi, Andrea ;
Magni, Veronica ;
Zanardo, Moreno ;
Schiaffino, Simone ;
Sardanelli, Francesco .
RADIOLOGY, 2022, 302 (03) :568-581
[3]  
D'orsi C., 2013, Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas
[4]   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: an Overview [J].
Dhamija, Ekta ;
Gulati, Malvika ;
Deo, S. V. S. ;
Gogia, Ajay ;
Hari, Smriti .
INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2021, 12 (02) :315-329
[5]  
Dromain Clarisse, 2006, AJR Am J Roentgenol, V187, pW528, DOI 10.2214/AJR.05.1944
[6]  
FDA, 510K CLEAR GE CONTR
[7]   Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview [J].
Ferlay, Jacques ;
Colombet, Murielle ;
Soerjomataram, Isabelle ;
Parkin, Donald M. ;
Pineros, Marion ;
Znaor, Ariana ;
Bray, Freddie .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2021, 149 (04) :778-789
[8]   Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer [J].
Girometti, Rossano ;
Linda, Anna ;
Conte, Paola ;
Lorenzon, Michele ;
De Serio, Isabella ;
Jerman, Katerina ;
Londero, Viviana ;
Zuiani, Chiara .
RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 2021, 126 (11) :1407-1414
[9]   Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) [J].
James, J. J. ;
Tennant, S. L. .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 73 (08) :715-723
[10]   Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography [J].
James, Judy R. ;
Pavlicek, William ;
Hanson, James A. ;
Boltz, Thomas F. ;
Patel, Bhavika K. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 208 (02) :362-372