Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Comparison to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Lesions

被引:65
作者
Xing, Dong [1 ]
Lv, Yongbin [1 ]
Sun, Bolin [2 ]
Xie, Haizhu [1 ]
Dong, Jianjun [1 ]
Hao, Cuijuan [1 ]
Chen, Qianqian [3 ]
Chi, Xiaoxiao [1 ]
机构
[1] Qingdao Univ, Dept Radiol, Yantai, Peoples R China
[2] Qingdao Univ, Yantai Yuhuangding Hosp, Intervent Therapy Ward, Yantai, Peoples R China
[3] Qingdao Univ, Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hosp, Yantai, Peoples R China
关键词
breast cancer; contrast agent; contrast-enhanced spectral mammography; magnetic resonance imaging; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.1097/RCT.0000000000000832
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
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value between contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast disease. Methods Two hundred thirty-five patients who were suspected of having breast abnormalities by clinical examination or mammography underwent CESM and MRI examination. Using histopathologic results as the criterion standard, the diagnostic performance of CESM and MRI was investigated. The areas under receiver operating characteristic curves were applied to analyze diagnostic efficiency. The Pearson correlation coefficients between CESM versus pathology and MRI versus pathology were calculated. Results Two hundred sixty-three breast lesions were found in 235 patients, in which 177 were malignant and 86 were benign. By evaluating the diagnostic value, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and false-negative rate from CESM examination were comparable to those from MRI (91.5%, 94.7%, 83.7%, and 8.5% vs 91.5%, 90.5%, 82.1%, and 8.5%). Importantly, the accuracy and the specificity were higher for CESM than those for MRI (81% and 89.5% vs 80.2% and 71.7%), whereas the false-positive rate was lower (10.5% vs 19.8%). The areas under receiver operating characteristic curves of CESM and MRI were 0.950 and 0.939, displaying the equivalent diagnostic efficiency (P = 0.48). For the agreement between measurements, mean tumor sizes were 3.1 cm for CESM and 3.4 cm for MRI compared with 3.2 cm on histopathologic results. The Pearson correlation coefficient of CESM versus histopathology (r = 0.774, P = 0.000) was consistent with MRI versus histopathology (r = 0.771, P = 0.000). Conclusions Our results show better accuracy, specificity, and false-positive rate of CESM in breast cancer detection than MRI. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography displayed a good correlation with histopathology in assessing the lesion size of breast cancer, which is consistent with MRI.
引用
收藏
页码:245 / 251
页数:7
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Barra Filipe Ramos, 2017, Radiol Bras, V50, P224
[2]   Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Clinical Applications [J].
Bhimani, Chandni ;
Matta, Danielle ;
Roth, Robyn G. ;
Liao, Lydia ;
Tinney, Elizabeth ;
Brill, Kristin ;
Germaine, Pauline .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2017, 24 (01) :84-88
[3]   MRI Screening in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer [J].
Evans, D. Gareth ;
Maxwell, Anthony J. .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2016, 108 (03)
[4]   Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: Systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer [J].
Houssami, Nehmat ;
Ciatto, Stefano ;
Macaskill, Petra ;
Lord, Sarah J. ;
Warren, Ruth M. ;
Dixon, J. Michael ;
Irwig, Les .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2008, 26 (19) :3248-3258
[5]   Bilateral Contrast-enhanced Dual-Energy Digital Mammography: Feasibility and Comparison with Conventional Digital Mammography and MR Imaging in Women with Known Breast Carcinoma [J].
Jochelson, Maxine S. ;
Dershaw, D. David ;
Sung, Janice S. ;
Heerdt, Alexandra S. ;
Thornton, Cynthia ;
Moskowitz, Chaya S. ;
Ferrara, Jessica ;
Morris, Elizabeth A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2013, 266 (03) :743-751
[6]   Application of BI-RADS Descriptors in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: Comparison with MRI [J].
Knogler, Thomas ;
Homolka, Peter ;
Hoernig, Mathias ;
Leithner, Robert ;
Langs, Georg ;
Waitzbauer, Martin ;
Pinker, Katja ;
Leitner, Sabine ;
Helbich, Thomas H. .
BREAST CARE, 2017, 12 (04) :212-216
[7]   Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme [J].
Lobbes, Marc B. I. ;
Lalji, Ulrich ;
Houwers, Janneke ;
Nijssen, Estelle C. ;
Nelemans, Patty J. ;
van Roozendaal, Lori ;
Smidt, Marjolein L. ;
Heuts, Esther ;
Wildberger, Joachim E. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (07) :1668-1676
[8]   Comparison between Breast MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography [J].
Luczynska, Elzbieta ;
Heinze-Paluchowska, Sylwia ;
Hendrick, Edward ;
Dyczek, Sonia ;
Rys, Janusz ;
Herman, Krzysztof ;
Blecharz, Pawel ;
Jakubowicz, Jerzy .
MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2015, 21 :1358-1367
[9]   Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis [J].
Marinovich, Michael L. ;
Macaskill, Petra ;
Irwig, Les ;
Sardanelli, Francesco ;
Mamounas, Eleftherios ;
von Minckwitz, Gunter ;
Guarneri, Valentina ;
Partridge, Savannah C. ;
Wright, Frances C. ;
Choi, Jae Hyuck ;
Bhattacharyya, Madhumita ;
Martincich, Laura ;
Yeh, Eren ;
Londero, Viviana ;
Houssami, Nehmat .
BMC CANCER, 2015, 15
[10]   Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts [J].
Mori, Miki ;
Akashi-Tanaka, Sadako ;
Suzuki, Satoko ;
Daniels, Murasaki Ikeda ;
Watanabe, Chie ;
Hirose, Masanori ;
Nakamura, Seigo .
BREAST CANCER, 2017, 24 (01) :104-110