UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 99mTc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography (SMM) and conventional mammography in patients presenting with suspected primary breast cancer. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was applied to determine if a combination of x-ray mammography (XMM) and SMM was more accurate than a single test alone. METHODS: The results of SMM, XMM, and a combination of both studies performed over a 3-y period on 374 suspicious lesions in 353 patients with no previous history of breast cancer were reviewed. Each scan report was reviewed and graded as follows: grade 1, definitely normal or benign; grade 2, probably normal or benign; grade 3, equivocal; grade 4, probably cancer; and grade 5, definitely cancer. The results were verified by pathologic examination of biopsy material obtained from each suspicious mass. ROC curves were generated from these results. RESULTS: There were 204 malignant breast tumors and 170 nonmalignant breast lesions. SMM diagnosed correctly 181 breast cancers and was true-negative in 122 benign breast lesions: sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 71%; positive predictive value (PPV), 79%; and negative predictive value (NPV), 84%. XMM diagnosed correctly 143 malignant tumors and was true-negative in 117 nonmalignant lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for XMM were 70%, 69%, 73%, and 66%, respectively. Using a combination of the two tests, the combined sensitivity was 93%, specificity was 72%, PPV was 80%, and NPV was 90%. Using the index of the area under the ROC curve obtained by the rating method showed that the combination of XMM and SMM was significantly more accurate than either of the individual tests if performed alone (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the combination of XMM and SMM produces more accurate results than either modality alone. Therefore, if there is doubt about the accuracy of XMM, SMM should be used as the second-line test in breast imaging.
UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 99mTc-methoxyisobutylisonitrile scintimammography (SMM) and conventional mammography in patients presenting with suspected primary breast cancer. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was applied to determine if a combination of x-ray mammography (XMM) and SMM was more accurate than a single test alone. METHODS: The results of SMM, XMM, and a combination of both studies performed over a 3-y period on 374 suspicious lesions in 353 patients with no previous history of breast cancer were reviewed. Each scan report was reviewed and graded as follows: grade 1, definitely normal or benign; grade 2, probably normal or benign; grade 3, equivocal; grade 4, probably cancer; and grade 5, definitely cancer. The results were verified by pathologic examination of biopsy material obtained from each suspicious mass. ROC curves were generated from these results. RESULTS: There were 204 malignant breast tumors and 170 nonmalignant breast lesions. SMM diagnosed correctly 181 breast cancers and was true-negative in 122 benign breast lesions: sensitivity, 89%; specificity, 71%; positive predictive value (PPV), 79%; and negative predictive value (NPV), 84%. XMM diagnosed correctly 143 malignant tumors and was true-negative in 117 nonmalignant lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for XMM were 70%, 69%, 73%, and 66%, respectively. Using a combination of the two tests, the combined sensitivity was 93%, specificity was 72%, PPV was 80%, and NPV was 90%. Using the index of the area under the ROC curve obtained by the rating method showed that the combination of XMM and SMM was significantly more accurate than either of the individual tests if performed alone (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the combination of XMM and SMM produces more accurate results than either modality alone. Therefore, if there is doubt about the accuracy of XMM, SMM should be used as the second-line test in breast imaging.
Authors: Emilio Bombardieri; Cumali Aktolun; Richard P Baum; Angelika Bishof-Delaloye; John Buscombe; Jean François Chatal; Lorenzo Maffioli; Roy Moncayo; Luc Mortelmans; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Caryl N Brzymialkiewicz; Martin P Tornai; Randolph L McKinley; James E Bowsher Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Qingjie Ma; Bin Chen; Shi Gao; Tiefeng Ji; Qiang Wen; Yan Song; Lei Zhu; Zheli Xu; Lin Liu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240