Chih-Ying Deng1, Yu-Hsiang Juan1,2, Yun-Chung Cheung1,2, Yu-Ching Lin1,2, Yung-Feng Lo3, GiGin Lin1,2, Shin-Cheh Chen2,3, Shu-Hang Ng1,2. 1. 1 Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital , Linkuo and Taoyuan , Taiwan. 2. 2 Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, Medical College of Chang Gung University , Taoyuan , Taiwan. 3. 3 Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou , Taoyuan , Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively analyze the quantitative measurement and kinetic enhancement among pathologically proven benign and malignant lesions using contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). METHODS: We investigated the differences in enhancement between 44 benign and 108 malignant breast lesions in CESM, quantifying the extent of enhancements and the relative enhancements between early (between 2-3 min after contrast medium injection) and late (3-6 min) phases. RESULTS: The enhancement was statistically stronger in malignancies compared to benign lesions, with good performance by the receiver operating characteristic curve [0.877, 95% confidence interval (0.813-0.941)]. Using optimal cut-off value at 220.94 according to Youden index, the sensitivity was 75.9%, specificity 88.6%, positive likelihood ratio 6.681, negative likelihood ratio 0.272 and accuracy 82.3%. The relative enhancement patterns of benign and malignant lesions, showing 29.92 vs 73.08% in the elevated pattern, 7.14 vs 92.86% in the steady pattern, 5.71 vs 94.29% in the depressed pattern, and 80.00 vs 20.00% in non-enhanced lesions (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite variations in the degree of tumour angiogenesis, quantitative analysis of the breast lesions on CESM documented the malignancies had distinctive stronger enhancement and depressed relative enhancement patterns than benign lesions. Advances in knowledge: To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the feasibility of quantifying lesion enhancement on CESM. The quantities of enhancement were informative for assessing breast lesions in which the malignancies had stronger enhancement and more relative depressed enhancement than the benign lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively analyze the quantitative measurement and kinetic enhancement among pathologically proven benign and malignant lesions using contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). METHODS: We investigated the differences in enhancement between 44 benign and 108 malignant breast lesions in CESM, quantifying the extent of enhancements and the relative enhancements between early (between 2-3 min after contrast medium injection) and late (3-6 min) phases. RESULTS: The enhancement was statistically stronger in malignancies compared to benign lesions, with good performance by the receiver operating characteristic curve [0.877, 95% confidence interval (0.813-0.941)]. Using optimal cut-off value at 220.94 according to Youden index, the sensitivity was 75.9%, specificity 88.6%, positive likelihood ratio 6.681, negative likelihood ratio 0.272 and accuracy 82.3%. The relative enhancement patterns of benign and malignant lesions, showing 29.92 vs 73.08% in the elevated pattern, 7.14 vs 92.86% in the steady pattern, 5.71 vs 94.29% in the depressed pattern, and 80.00 vs 20.00% in non-enhanced lesions (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite variations in the degree of tumour angiogenesis, quantitative analysis of the breast lesions on CESM documented the malignancies had distinctive stronger enhancement and depressed relative enhancement patterns than benign lesions. Advances in knowledge: To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating the feasibility of quantifying lesion enhancement on CESM. The quantities of enhancement were informative for assessing breast lesions in which the malignancies had stronger enhancement and more relative depressed enhancement than the benign lesions.
Authors: A C Watt; L V Ackerman; J P Windham; P C Shetty; M W Burke; M J Flynn; C Grodinsky; G Fine; S J Wilderman Journal: Radiology Date: 1986-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Vera Froeling; Felix Diekmann; Diane M Renz; Eva M Fallenberg; Ingo G Steffen; Susanne Diekmann; Rüdiger Lawaczeck; Florian F Schmitzberger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 5.315
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