Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results

被引:194
作者
Dromain, Clarisse [1 ,2 ]
Thibault, Fabienne [3 ]
Muller, Serge [4 ]
Rimareix, Francoise [5 ]
Delaloge, Suzette [6 ]
Tardivon, Anne [3 ]
Balleyguier, Corinne [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Cancerol Gustave Roussy, Dept Radiol, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[2] Inst Cancerol Gustave Roussy, Dept Imaging, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[3] Inst Curie, Dept Imaging, F-75248 Paris 05, France
[4] GE Healthcare, F-78530 Buc, France
[5] Inst Gustave Roussy, Dept Surg, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[6] Inst Gustave Roussy, Dept Med, F-94805 Villejuif, France
关键词
BREAST-CANCER; DIAGNOSIS; MORTALITY; WOMEN; US;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
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
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US). 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated. The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p < 0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively. Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
引用
收藏
页码:565 / 574
页数:10
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer
    Berg, WA
    Gutierrez, L
    NessAiver, MS
    Carter, WB
    Bhargavan, M
    Lewis, RS
    Ioffe, OB
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2004, 233 (03) : 830 - 849
  • [2] Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data
    Boone, JM
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (05) : 869 - 875
  • [3] COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC MAMMOGRAPHY USING A CONVENTIONAL BODY SCANNER
    CHANG, CHJ
    NESBIT, DE
    FISHER, DR
    FRITZ, SL
    DWYER, SJ
    TEMPLETON, AW
    LIN, F
    JEWELL, WR
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1982, 138 (03) : 553 - 558
  • [4] Diekmann F, 2007, EUR RADIOL, V17, P174
  • [5] Dromain Clarisse, 2006, AJR Am J Roentgenol, V187, pW528, DOI 10.2214/AJR.05.1944
  • [6] Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography:: 1.: Further confirmation with extended data
    Duffy, SW
    Tabár, L
    Chen, THH
    Smith, RA
    Holmberg, L
    Jonsson, H
    Lenner, P
    Nyström, L
    Törnberg, S
    [J]. CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2006, 15 (01) : 45 - 51
  • [7] Contrast-enhanced CT: Value for diagnosing local breast cancer recurrence after conservative treatment
    Hagay, C
    Cherel, PJP
    deMaulmont, CE
    Plantet, MM
    Gilles, R
    Floiras, JLG
    Garbay, JR
    Pallud, CM
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1996, 200 (03) : 631 - 638
  • [8] Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging
    Hollingsworth, Alan B.
    Stough, Rebecca G.
    O'Dell, Carol A.
    Brekke, Charles E.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2008, 196 (03) : 389 - 397
  • [9] Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical experience
    Jong, RA
    Yaffe, MJ
    Skarpathiotakis, M
    Shumak, RS
    Danjoux, NM
    Gunesekara, A
    Plewes, DB
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2003, 228 (03) : 842 - 850
  • [10] Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations
    Kolb, TM
    Lichy, J
    Newhouse, JH
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 (01) : 165 - 175