Literature DB >> 27466557

Comparison of the Mammography, Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Ultrasonography in a Group of 116 patients.

Elzbieta Luczyńska1, Sylwia Heinze2, Agnieszka Adamczyk3, Janusz Rys4, Jerzy W Mitus5, Edward Hendrick6.   

Abstract

Mammography (MG) is the gold-standard in breast cancer detection - the only method documented to reduce breast cancer mortality. Breast ultrasound (US) has been shown to increase sensitivity to breast cancers in screening women with dense breasts. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a novel technique intensively developed in the last few years. The goal of this study was to compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MG, US and CESM in detecting malignant breast lesions. The study included 116 patients. All patients were symptomatic and underwent MG, US and CESM. A radiologist with 20 years of experience in US and MG breast imaging and 1 year of experience in CESM reviewed images acquired in each of the three modalities separately, within an interval of 14-30 days. All identified lesions were confirmed at core biopsy. BI-RADS classifications on US, MG and CESM were compared to histopathology. MG, CESM and US were compared among 116 patients with 137 lesions encountered. Sensitivity of CESM was 100%, significantly higher than that of MG (90%, p<0.004) or US (92%, p<0.01). CESM accuracy was 78%, also higher than MG (69%, p<0.004) and US (70%, p=0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between AUCs for CESM and US (both 0.83). The AUCs of both US and CESM, however, were significantly larger than that of MG (p<0.0004 for each). CESM permitted better detection of malignant lesions than both MG and US, read individually. CESM found lesion enhancement in some benign lesions, as well, yielding a rate of false-positive diagnoses similar to that of MG and US. Copyright
© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM); mammography (MG); ultrasonography (US)

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27466557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anticancer Res        ISSN: 0250-7005            Impact factor:   2.480


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Tali Amir; Molly P Hogan; Stefanie Jacobs; Varadan Sevilimedu; Janice Sung; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Julie Sogani; Victoria L Mango; Delia Keating; Janice S Sung; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology-preliminary results.

Authors:  Wojciech Rudnicki; Sylwia Heinze; Joanna Niemiec; Zbigniew Kojs; Beata Sas-Korczynska; Ed Hendrick; Elzbieta Luczynska
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Rapid Access to Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammogRaphy in women recalled from breast cancer screening: the RACER trial study design.

Authors:  L M F H Neeter; I P L Houben; P J Nelemans; T J A Van Nijnatten; R M Pijnappel; C Frotscher; M Osinga-de Jong; F Sanders; T Van Dalen; H P J Raat; B A B Essers; J E Wildberger; M L Smidt; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Preoperative assessment of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography of diagnosed breast cancers after sonographic biopsy: Correlation to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and 5-year postoperative follow-up.

Authors:  Yun-Chung Cheung; Yu-Hsiang Juan; Yung-Feng Lo; Yu-Ching Lin; Chih-Hua Yeh; Shir-Hwa Ueng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast.

Authors:  Rashmi Sudhir; Kamala Sannapareddy; Alekya Potlapalli; Pooja Boggaram Krishnamurthy; Suryakala Buddha; Veeraiah Koppula
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matteo Basilio Suter; Filippo Pesapane; Giorgio Maria Agazzi; Tania Gagliardi; Olga Nigro; Anna Bozzini; Francesca Priolo; Silvia Penco; Enrico Cassano; Claudio Chini; Alessandro Squizzato
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 4.380

8.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Versus Ultrasonography: Diagnostic Performance in Symptomatic Patients with Dense Breasts.

Authors:  Zhongfei Lu; Cuijuan Hao; Yan Pan; Ning Mao; Xin Wang; Xundi Yin
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.500

9.  Microscopic Tumour Classification by Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Jingjing Yang; Huichao Li; Ning Shi; Qifan Zhang; Yanan Liu
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 2.682

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.