Miki Mori1, Sadako Akashi-Tanaka2, Satoko Suzuki2, Murasaki Ikeda Daniels2, Chie Watanabe2, Masanori Hirose3, Seigo Nakamura2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawaku, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan. mikimori@med.showa-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Surgical Oncology, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawaku, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography to compare clinical efficacy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and conventional digital mammography (MMG) with histopathology as gold standard in dense breasts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 143 breasts of 72 women who underwent CESM and MMG between 2011 and 2014 at Showa University Hospital were analyzed. RESULTS: 129 (90.2 %) of 143 breasts revealed dense breasts on MMG. 58 (40.6 %) of 143 breasts were diagnosed with breast cancer at histopathology. The remaining 85 breasts were diagnosed with benign findings after image assessments and/or core needle biopsy. CESM revealed 8 false-negative cases among 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 86.2 %) and 5 false-positive cases (specificity 94.1 %). Accuracy was 90.9 %. Conventional MMG was assessed true positive in 31 of 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 53.4 %) and false positive in 12 cases (specificity 85.9 %). Accuracy was 72.7 %. Sensitivity (p < 0.001), specificity (p = 0.016) and accuracy (p < 0.001) were significantly higher on CESM compared to MMG. MMG missed malignancy in 27 breasts. Of these, 25 were dense breasts. Of these 25, 20 (80.0 %) breasts were positive on CESM. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that CESM offers superior clinical performance compared to MMG. Use of CESM may decrease false negatives especially for women with dense breasts.
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography to compare clinical efficacy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and conventional digital mammography (MMG) with histopathology as gold standard in dense breasts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 143 breasts of 72 women who underwent CESM and MMG between 2011 and 2014 at Showa University Hospital were analyzed. RESULTS: 129 (90.2 %) of 143 breasts revealed dense breasts on MMG. 58 (40.6 %) of 143 breasts were diagnosed with breast cancer at histopathology. The remaining 85 breasts were diagnosed with benign findings after image assessments and/or core needle biopsy. CESM revealed 8 false-negative cases among 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 86.2 %) and 5 false-positive cases (specificity 94.1 %). Accuracy was 90.9 %. Conventional MMG was assessed true positive in 31 of 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 53.4 %) and false positive in 12 cases (specificity 85.9 %). Accuracy was 72.7 %. Sensitivity (p < 0.001), specificity (p = 0.016) and accuracy (p < 0.001) were significantly higher on CESM compared to MMG. MMG missed malignancy in 27 breasts. Of these, 25 were dense breasts. Of these 25, 20 (80.0 %) breasts were positive on CESM. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that CESM offers superior clinical performance compared to MMG. Use of CESM may decrease false negatives especially for women with dense breasts.
Entities:
Keywords:
Asian women; Breast cancer; Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography; Dense breast
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: 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
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: Thomas Knogler; Peter Homolka; Mathias Hoernig; Robert Leithner; Georg Langs; Martin Waitzbauer; Katja Pinker; Sabine Leitner; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 2.860