Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast

被引:26
作者
Sudhir, Rashmi [1 ]
Sannapareddy, Kamala [1 ]
Potlapalli, Alekya [1 ]
Krishnamurthy, Pooja Boggaram [1 ]
Buddha, Suryakala [1 ]
Koppula, Veeraiah [1 ]
机构
[1] Basavatarakam Indoamer Canc Hosp & Res Inst, Hyderabad, India
关键词
SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; SURVEILLANCE; PERFORMANCE; RISK; MRI; US;
D O I
10.1259/bjr.20201046
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: To assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer detection in comparison to synthetic two-dimensional mammography (s2D MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasound examination in females with dense breast with histopathology as the gold-standard. Methods: It was a prospective study, where consecutive females presenting to symptomatic breast clinic between April 2019 and June 2020 were evaluated with DBT. Females who were found to have heterogeneously dense (ACR type C) or extremely dense (ACR type D) breast composition detected on s2D MG were further evaluated with high-resolution breast ultrasound and thereafter with CEDM, but before the core biopsy or surgical excision, were included in the study. s2D MG was derived from post-processing reconstruction of DBT data set. Females with pregnancy, renal insufficiency or prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast agent were excluded from the study. Image interpretation was done by two experienced breast radiologists and both were blinded to histological diagnosis. Results: This study included 166 breast lesions in130 patients with mean age of 45 +/- 12 years (age range 24-72 years). There were 87 (52.4%) malignant and 79 (47.6%) benign lesions. The sensitivity of CEDM was 96.5%, significantly higher than synthetic 2D MG (75.6%, p < 0.0001), DBT alone (82.8%, p < 0.0001) and DBT + ultrasound (88.5%, p = 0.0057): specificity of CEDM was 81%, significantly higher than s2D MG (63.3%, p = 0.0002) and comparable to DBT alone (84.4%, p = 0.3586) and DBT + ultrasound (79.7%, p = 0.4135). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was of 0.896 for CEDM, 0.841 for DBT + ultrasound, 0.769 for DBT alone and 0.729 for s2D MG. Conclusion: CEDM is an accurate diagnostic technique for cancer detection in dense breast. CEDM allowed a significantly higher number of breast cancer detection than the s2D MG, DBT alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasonography in females with dense breast. Advances in knowledge: CEDM is a promising novel technology with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in females with dense breast in comparison to DBT alone or DBT supplemented with ultrasound.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years [J].
Buist, DSM ;
Porter, PL ;
Lehman, C ;
Taplin, SH ;
White, E .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (19) :1432-1440
[2]   Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis [J].
Dibble, Elizabeth H. ;
Singer, Tisha M. ;
Jimoh, Nneka ;
Baird, Grayson L. ;
Lourenco, Ana P. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (06) :1397-1402
[3]  
Dodelzon K, 2020, AM J ROENTGENOL, V7, P1
[4]   Synthesized Mammography: Clinical Evidence, Appearance, and Implementation [J].
Durand, Melissa A. .
DIAGNOSTICS, 2018, 8 (02)
[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]   Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue [J].
Kaplan, SS .
RADIOLOGY, 2001, 221 (03) :641-649
[7]   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 [J].
Kolb, TM ;
Lichy, J ;
Newhouse, JH .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 (01) :165-175
[8]   Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer [J].
Kuhl, CK ;
Schrading, S ;
Leutner, CC ;
Morakkabati-Spitz, N ;
Wardelmann, E ;
Fimmers, R ;
Kuhn, W ;
Schild, HH .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2005, 23 (33) :8469-8476
[9]  
Lee EH, 2016, KOREAN J RADIOL, V17, P489
[10]   Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis [J].
Lei, Junqiang ;
Yang, Pin ;
Zhang, Li ;
Wang, Yinzhong ;
Yang, Kehu .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (03) :595-602