Eva M Fallenberg1, Florian F Schmitzberger2, Heba Amer2, Barbara Ingold-Heppner3, Corinne Balleyguier4, Felix Diekmann5, Florian Engelken2, Ritse M Mann6, Diane M Renz7, Ulrich Bick2, Bernd Hamm2, Clarisse Dromain4. 1. Clinic of Radiology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. eva.fallenberg@charite.de. 2. Clinic of Radiology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. 3. Institut of Pathology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, St. Joseph-Stift Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 6. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study. METHODS: One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology. RESULTS: Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG. KEY POINTS: • CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study. METHODS: One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology. RESULTS: Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG. KEY POINTS: • CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast neoplasms; Contrast media; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography
Authors: Thomas Steger-Hartmann; Rainer Hofmeister; Rainer Ernst; Hubertus Pietsch; Martin A Sieber; Jacob Walter Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mark A Francescone; Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Mary C Hughes; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Michael Braun; Martin Pölcher; Simone Schrading; Oliver Zivanovic; Theresa Kowalski; Uta Flucke; Claudia Leutner; Tong-Wong Park-Simon; Christian Rudlowski; Walther Kuhn; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-09-29 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Funda Meric; Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; Thomas A Buchholz; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Savitri Krishnamurthy; George H Perkins; Marsha D McNeese; Eric A Strom; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marc B I Lobbes; Ulrich Lalji; Janneke Houwers; Estelle C Nijssen; Patty J Nelemans; Lori van Roozendaal; Marjolein L Smidt; Esther Heuts; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Andrew Evans; Eva Fallenberg; Gabor Forrai; Michael H Fuchsjäger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Julia Camps-Herrero; Christiane K Kuhl; Laura Martincich; Federica Pediconi; Pietro Panizza; Luis J Pina; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Per Skaane; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Yongxia Zhang; Lei Song; Han Zhang; Fengjie Liu; Guo Hao; Jing Liu; Haizhu Xie; Hao Shi Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 1.671