S L Tennant1, J J James2, E J Cornford2, Y Chen3, H C Burrell2, L J Hamilton2, C Girio-Fragkoulakis2. 1. Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. Electronic address: sarah.tennant@nuh.nhs.uk. 2. Nottingham Breast Institute, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. 3. Applied Vision Research Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and gauge its "added value" in the symptomatic setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multi-reader review of 100 consecutive CESM examinations was performed. Anonymised low-energy (LE) images were reviewed and given a score for malignancy. At least 3 weeks later, the entire examination (LE and recombined images) was reviewed. Histopathology data were obtained for all cases. Differences in performance were assessed using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and lesion size (versus MRI or histopathology) differences were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of cases were malignant at final histology, 27% were benign following standard triple assessment. ROC analysis showed improved overall performance of CESM over LE alone, with area under the curve of 0.93 versus 0.83 (p<0.025). CESM showed increased sensitivity (95% versus 84%, p<0.025) and specificity (81% versus 63%, p<0.025) compared to LE alone, with all five readers showing improved accuracy. Tumour size estimation at CESM was significantly more accurate than LE alone, the latter tending to undersize lesions. In 75% of cases, CESM was deemed a useful or significant aid to diagnosis. CONCLUSION: CESM provides immediately available, clinically useful information in the symptomatic clinic in patients with suspicious palpable abnormalities. Radiologist sensitivity, specificity, and size accuracy for breast cancer detection and staging are all improved using CESM as the primary mammographic investigation.
AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and gauge its "added value" in the symptomatic setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective multi-reader review of 100 consecutive CESM examinations was performed. Anonymised low-energy (LE) images were reviewed and given a score for malignancy. At least 3 weeks later, the entire examination (LE and recombined images) was reviewed. Histopathology data were obtained for all cases. Differences in performance were assessed using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and lesion size (versus MRI or histopathology) differences were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of cases were malignant at final histology, 27% were benign following standard triple assessment. ROC analysis showed improved overall performance of CESM over LE alone, with area under the curve of 0.93 versus 0.83 (p<0.025). CESM showed increased sensitivity (95% versus 84%, p<0.025) and specificity (81% versus 63%, p<0.025) compared to LE alone, with all five readers showing improved accuracy. Tumour size estimation at CESM was significantly more accurate than LE alone, the latter tending to undersize lesions. In 75% of cases, CESM was deemed a useful or significant aid to diagnosis. CONCLUSION: CESM provides immediately available, clinically useful information in the symptomatic clinic in patients with suspicious palpable abnormalities. Radiologist sensitivity, specificity, and size accuracy for breast cancer detection and staging are all improved using CESM as the primary mammographic investigation.
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: Kristen Coffey; Janice Sung; Christopher Comstock; Gulce Askin; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Donna D'Alessio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 6.582
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Eva M Fallenberg; Paola Clauser; Rubina M Trimboli; Julia Camps-Herrero; Thomas H Helbich; Gabor Forrai Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2016-11-16
Authors: Kristina Åhsberg; Anna Gardfjell; Emma Nimeus; Rogvi Rasmussen; Catharina Behmer; Sophia Zackrisson; Lisa Ryden Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 2.754
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: Sang Yu Nam; Eun Sook Ko; Yaeji Lim; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Jeong Eon Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240