Katrin S Blum1, Christian Rubbert2, Britta Mathys2, Gerald Antoch2, Svjetlana Mohrmann3, Silvia Obenauer2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: blum.katrin@gmx.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. 3. Department of Gynecology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate and compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and ultrasound (US) in size measurement of breast cancer with histologic tumor sizes as gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty women aged between 40-73 years (mean age, 57 ± 10 years) with histologically proven invasive ductal/lobular carcinomas were included in the study. Agreement between imaging tumor size (CESM and US) and histopathologic tumor size was evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis. Stereotactically guided vacuum biopsy was performed in four patients after CESM. Two independent reviewers described artifacts of CESM. RESULTS: Motion artifacts did not occur in the study. CESM-specific artifacts caused by scattered radiation mostly occurred in oblique view of CESM. Background enhancement of breast tissue was seen in four patients. Mean difference of tumor sizes was 0.3 mm (6.34%) between CESM and histology and -2.2 mm (-7.59%) between US and histology. Limits of agreement ranged from -18.9 to 19.48 mm for CESM and from -17.1 to 12.7 mm with US. Especially smaller tumors with a size <23 mm were measured more precisely with CESM. Enhancement of breast tissue around microcalcifications correlated with abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: CESM is accurate in size measurements of small breast tumors. On average CESM leads to a slight overestimation of tumor size, whereas US tends to underestimate tumor size. Assessment of the breast tissue can be limited by the scattered radiation artifact and background enhancement of breast tissue. CESM seems to be helpful in the characterization of breast tissue around microcalcifications.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate and compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and ultrasound (US) in size measurement of breast cancer with histologic tumor sizes as gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty women aged between 40-73 years (mean age, 57 ± 10 years) with histologically proven invasive ductal/lobular carcinomas were included in the study. Agreement between imaging tumor size (CESM and US) and histopathologic tumor size was evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis. Stereotactically guided vacuum biopsy was performed in four patients after CESM. Two independent reviewers described artifacts of CESM. RESULTS: Motion artifacts did not occur in the study. CESM-specific artifacts caused by scattered radiation mostly occurred in oblique view of CESM. Background enhancement of breast tissue was seen in four patients. Mean difference of tumor sizes was 0.3 mm (6.34%) between CESM and histology and -2.2 mm (-7.59%) between US and histology. Limits of agreement ranged from -18.9 to 19.48 mm for CESM and from -17.1 to 12.7 mm with US. Especially smaller tumors with a size <23 mm were measured more precisely with CESM. Enhancement of breast tissue around microcalcifications correlated with abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: CESM is accurate in size measurements of small breast tumors. On average CESM leads to a slight overestimation of tumor size, whereas US tends to underestimate tumor size. Assessment of the breast tissue can be limited by the scattered radiation artifact and background enhancement of breast tissue. CESM seems to be helpful in the characterization of breast tissue around microcalcifications.
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: María Del Mar Travieso-Aja; Daniel Maldonado-Saluzzi; Pedro Naranjo-Santana; Claudia Fernández-Ruiz; Wilsa Severino-Rondón; Mario Rodríguez Rodríguez; Víctor Vega Benítez; Octavio Pérez-Luzardo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: U C Lalji; C R L P N Jeukens; I Houben; P J Nelemans; R E van Engen; E van Wylick; R G H Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; L E Paulis; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrzej Lorek; Katarzyna Steinhof-Radwańska; Anna Barczyk-Gutkowska; Wojciech Zarębski; Piotr Paleń; Karol Szyluk; Joanna Lorek; Anna Grażyńska; Paweł Niemiec; Iwona Gisterek Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Filipe Ramos Barra; Fernanda Freire de Souza; Rosimara Eva Ferreira Almeida Camelo; Andrea Campos de Oliveira Ribeiro; Luciano Farage Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2017 Jul-Aug