Susanne Wienbeck1, Uwe Fischer2, Susanne Luftner-Nagel2, Joachim Lotz3, Johannes Uhlig3. 1. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Street 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. susanne.wienbeck@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Diagnostic Breast Center Göttingen, Bahnhofsallee 1d, Göttingen, Germany. 3. Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Street 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced (CE) cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) in dense breast tissue and compare it to non-contrast (NC) CBBCT, mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 41 women (52 breasts) with American College of Radiology (ACR) density types c or d and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5 assessments in MG or ultrasound (US). Imaging modalities were independently evaluated by two blinded readers. RESULTS: A total of 100 lesions (51 malignant, 6 high-risk, and 43 benign) were identified. For readers 1/2, respectively, and p values comparing CE-CBBCT to other modalities: diagnostic accuracy (AUC) for CE-CBBCT was 0.83/0.77, for MRI 0.88/0.89 (p = 0.2272/0.002), for NC-CBBCT 0.73/0.66 (p = 0.038/ 0.0186) and for MG 0.69/0.64 (p = 0.081/0.0207). CE-CBBCT sensitivity (0.88/0.78) was 37-39% higher in comparison to MG (0.49/0.41, p < 0.001 both) but inferior to MRI (0.98/0.96, p = 0.0253/0.0027). CE-CBBCT specificity (0.71/0.71) was numerically higher compared to MRI (0.61/0.69, p = 0.0956/0.7389). CONCLUSIONS: CBBCT diagnostic performance varied with the respective reader and experience. CE-CBBCT improved AUC and sensitivity in comparison to MG and NC-CBBCT, and was comparable to MRI in dense breast tissue. In tendency, specificity was higher for CE-CBBCT than MRI. KEY POINTS: • CE-CBBCT diagnostic accuracy (AUC) was comparable to MRI in dense breasts. • CE-CBBCT improved sensitivity and AUC in comparison to MG and NC-CBBCT. • CE-CBBCT has inferior sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • CE-CBBCT is a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced (CE) cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) in dense breast tissue and compare it to non-contrast (NC) CBBCT, mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 41 women (52 breasts) with American College of Radiology (ACR) density types c or d and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5 assessments in MG or ultrasound (US). Imaging modalities were independently evaluated by two blinded readers. RESULTS: A total of 100 lesions (51 malignant, 6 high-risk, and 43 benign) were identified. For readers 1/2, respectively, and p values comparing CE-CBBCT to other modalities: diagnostic accuracy (AUC) for CE-CBBCT was 0.83/0.77, for MRI 0.88/0.89 (p = 0.2272/0.002), for NC-CBBCT 0.73/0.66 (p = 0.038/ 0.0186) and for MG 0.69/0.64 (p = 0.081/0.0207). CE-CBBCT sensitivity (0.88/0.78) was 37-39% higher in comparison to MG (0.49/0.41, p < 0.001 both) but inferior to MRI (0.98/0.96, p = 0.0253/0.0027). CE-CBBCT specificity (0.71/0.71) was numerically higher compared to MRI (0.61/0.69, p = 0.0956/0.7389). CONCLUSIONS: CBBCT diagnostic performance varied with the respective reader and experience. CE-CBBCT improved AUC and sensitivity in comparison to MG and NC-CBBCT, and was comparable to MRI in dense breast tissue. In tendency, specificity was higher for CE-CBBCT than MRI. KEY POINTS: • CE-CBBCT diagnostic accuracy (AUC) was comparable to MRI in dense breasts. • CE-CBBCT improved sensitivity and AUC in comparison to MG and NC-CBBCT. • CE-CBBCT has inferior sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • CE-CBBCT is a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.
Authors: Avice O'Connell; David L Conover; Yan Zhang; Posy Seifert; Wende Logan-Young; Chuen-Fu Linda Lin; Lawrence Sahler; Ruola Ning Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Posy Seifert; David Conover; Yan Zhang; Renee Morgan; Andrea Arieno; Stamatia Destounis; Patricia Somerville; Philip F Murphy Journal: Breast J Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Seyedamir Tavakoli Taba; Patrycja Baran; Yakov I Nesterets; Serena Pacile; Susanne Wienbeck; Christian Dullin; Konstantin Pavlov; Anton Maksimenko; Darren Lockie; Sheridan C Mayo; Harry M Quiney; Diego Dreossi; Fulvia Arfelli; Giuliana Tromba; Sarah Lewis; Timur E Gureyev; Patrick C Brennan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jann Wieler; Nicole Berger; Thomas Frauenfelder; Magda Marcon; Andreas Boss Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 1.889