Vera Sorin1,2, Yael Yagil1,2, Ady Yosepovich2,3, Anat Shalmon1,2, Michael Gotlieb1,2, Osnat Halshtok Neiman1,2, Miri Sklair-Levy1,2. 1. 1 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Meirav Breast Center, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Emek Haela St 1, Ramat Gan, Israel, 52621. 2. 2 Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. 3 Department of Pathology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and ultrasound with that of standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening of women at intermediate risk who have dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of 611 consecutively registered women who underwent screening CESM from 2012 to 2017, BI-RADS scores of the screening modalities were compared with actual disease status, assessed by histopathologic analysis or imaging follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 611 women included, 48.3% (295/611) had family or personal history of breast cancer, the BI-RADS breast density score was C or D in 93.1% (569/611). The mean follow-up period was 20 months. Mammography depicted 11 of 21 malignancies, sensitivity of 52.4%, specificity of 90.5% (534/590), positive predictive value of 16.4% (11/67), and negative predictive value of 98.2% (534/544). CESM depicted 19 of 21 malignancies, sensitivity of 90.5%, specificity of 76.1% (449/590), positive predictive value of 11.9% (19/160), and negative predictive value of 99.6% (449/451). Differences in sensitivity (p = 0.008) and specificity (p < 0.001) were statistically significant. Adjunct ultrasound revealed 73 additional suspicious findings; all were false-positive. In 39 women MRI was needed to assess screening abnormalities; two MRI-guided biopsies were performed and yielded one cancer. The incremental cancer detection rate of CESM was 13.1/1000 women (95% CI, 6.1-20.1). Of eight cancers seen only with CESM, seven were invasive (mean size, 9 mm; two of four cancers lymph-node positive). CONCLUSION: CESM was significantly more sensitive than standard digital mammography for detecting breast cancer in this screening population. No added benefit was found in the performance of ultrasound as an adjunct to CESM screens with negative results. CESM may be a valuable supplemental screening modality for women at intermediate risk who have dense breasts.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and ultrasound with that of standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening of women at intermediate risk who have dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of 611 consecutively registered women who underwent screening CESM from 2012 to 2017, BI-RADS scores of the screening modalities were compared with actual disease status, assessed by histopathologic analysis or imaging follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 611 women included, 48.3% (295/611) had family or personal history of breast cancer, the BI-RADS breast density score was C or D in 93.1% (569/611). The mean follow-up period was 20 months. Mammography depicted 11 of 21 malignancies, sensitivity of 52.4%, specificity of 90.5% (534/590), positive predictive value of 16.4% (11/67), and negative predictive value of 98.2% (534/544). CESM depicted 19 of 21 malignancies, sensitivity of 90.5%, specificity of 76.1% (449/590), positive predictive value of 11.9% (19/160), and negative predictive value of 99.6% (449/451). Differences in sensitivity (p = 0.008) and specificity (p < 0.001) were statistically significant. Adjunct ultrasound revealed 73 additional suspicious findings; all were false-positive. In 39 women MRI was needed to assess screening abnormalities; two MRI-guided biopsies were performed and yielded one cancer. The incremental cancer detection rate of CESM was 13.1/1000 women (95% CI, 6.1-20.1). Of eight cancers seen only with CESM, seven were invasive (mean size, 9 mm; two of four cancers lymph-node positive). CONCLUSION: CESM was significantly more sensitive than standard digital mammography for detecting breast cancer in this screening population. No added benefit was found in the performance of ultrasound as an adjunct to CESM screens with negative results. CESM may be a valuable supplemental screening modality for women at intermediate risk who have dense breasts.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast; breast cancer; contrast media; mammography; screening
Authors: Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Molly P Hogan; Tali Amir; Varadan Sevilimedu; Janice Sung; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 6.582