OBJECTIVE: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: 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). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Hagay; P J Cherel; C E de Maulmont; M M Plantet; R Gilles; J L Floiras; J R Garbay; C M Pallud Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C H Chang; D E Nesbit; D R Fisher; S L Fritz; S J Dwyer; A W Templeton; F Lin; W R Jewell Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1982-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe; Mia Skarpathiotakis; Rene S Shumak; Nathalie M Danjoux; Anoma Gunesekara; Donald B Plewes Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-07-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S G Orel; M D Schnall; C M Powell; M G Hochman; L J Solin; B L Fowble; M H Torosian; E F Rosato Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Maha H Helal; Sahar M Mansour; Mai Zaglol; Lamia A Salaleldin; Omniya M Nada; Marwa A Haggag Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: A V Chudgar; E F Conant; S P Weinstein; B M Keller; M Synnestvedt; P Yamartino; E S McDonald Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105