PURPOSE: To analyse the accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in dense breasts in comparison with contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography (CESM) and conventional mammography (Mx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CESM cases of dense breasts with histological proof were evaluated in the present study. Four radiologists with varying experience in mammography interpretation blindly read Mx first, followed by CESM. The diagnostic profiles, consistency and learning curve were analysed statistically. RESULTS: One hundred lesions (28 benign and 72 breast malignancies) in 89 females were analysed. Use of CESM improved the cancer diagnosis by 21.2 % in sensitivity (71.5 % to 92.7 %), by 16.1 % in specificity (51.8 % to 67.9 %) and by 19.8 % in accuracy (65.9 % to 85.8 %) compared with Mx. The interobserver diagnostic consistency was markedly higher using CESM than using Mx alone (0.6235 vs. 0.3869 using the kappa ratio). The probability of a correct prediction was elevated from 80 % to 90 % after 75 consecutive case readings. CONCLUSION: CESM provided additional information with consistent improvement of the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared to Mx alone. The prediction of the diagnosis could be improved by the interpretation of a significant number of cases in the presence of 6 % benign contrast enhancement in this study. KEY POINTS: • DE-CESM improves the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared with mammography. • DE-CESM shows greater consistency than mammography alone by interobserver blind reading. • Diagnostic improvement of DE-CESM is independent of the mammographic reading experience.
PURPOSE: To analyse the accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in dense breasts in comparison with contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography (CESM) and conventional mammography (Mx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CESM cases of dense breasts with histological proof were evaluated in the present study. Four radiologists with varying experience in mammography interpretation blindly read Mx first, followed by CESM. The diagnostic profiles, consistency and learning curve were analysed statistically. RESULTS: One hundred lesions (28 benign and 72 breast malignancies) in 89 females were analysed. Use of CESM improved the cancer diagnosis by 21.2 % in sensitivity (71.5 % to 92.7 %), by 16.1 % in specificity (51.8 % to 67.9 %) and by 19.8 % in accuracy (65.9 % to 85.8 %) compared with Mx. The interobserver diagnostic consistency was markedly higher using CESM than using Mx alone (0.6235 vs. 0.3869 using the kappa ratio). The probability of a correct prediction was elevated from 80 % to 90 % after 75 consecutive case readings. CONCLUSION: CESM provided additional information with consistent improvement of the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared to Mx alone. The prediction of the diagnosis could be improved by the interpretation of a significant number of cases in the presence of 6 % benign contrast enhancement in this study. KEY POINTS: • DE-CESM improves the cancer diagnosis in dense breasts compared with mammography. • DE-CESM shows greater consistency than mammography alone by interobserver blind reading. • Diagnostic improvement of DE-CESM is independent of the mammographic reading experience.
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gisella Gennaro; R Edward Hendrick; Alicia Toledano; Jean R Paquelet; Elisabetta Bezzon; Roberta Chersevani; Cosimo di Maggio; Manuela La Grassa; Luigi Pescarini; Ilaria Polico; Alessandro Proietti; Enrica Baldan; Fabio Pomerri; Pier Carlo Muzzio Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 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: Jessica C Hsu; Pratap C Naha; Kristen C Lau; Peter Chhour; Renee Hastings; Brianna F Moon; Joel M Stein; Walter R T Witschey; Elizabeth S McDonald; Andrew D A Maidment; David P Cormode Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105