Luca Nicosia1, Anna Carla Bozzini2, Simone Palma3, Marta Montesano2, Giulia Signorelli4, Filippo Pesapane2, Antuono Latronico2, Vincenzo Bagnardi5, Samuele Frassoni5, Claudia Sangalli6, Mariagiorgia Farina2, Enrico Cassano2. 1. Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy. luca.nicosia@ieo.it. 2. Breast Imaging Division, Radiology Department, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141, Milan, Italy. 3. University Department of Radiological and Hematological Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. 4. Postgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, 20126, Milan, Italy. 6. Data Management, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM), MG, US, and breast MRI in estimating the size of breast lesions requiring surgery. The postoperative histology size of the lesion was used as the gold standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred thirty-three non-benign lesions in 189 patients were included in the analyses. All the selected patients underwent CESM and at least one other conventional diagnostic exam (US, MG, or MRI). Subsequently, all the patients underwent surgery preceded by cytological/histological examination. The largest diameter of the lesion at imaging was measured by a radiologist with more than 10 years' experience and then compared with the size of the lesion in the histological sample at the surgery (gold standard). RESULTS: Among the 233 breast lesions, 196 were evaluated with US, 206 with MG and 160 with MRI. We found no statistically significant differences between size measurements using CESM and MRI compared with the measurements at the surgery (p value 0.63 and 0.51), whereas a significant difference was found for MG and US (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CESM is a reliable method for estimating the size of breast lesions: its performance seems superior to US and MG and comparable to MRI.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM), MG, US, and breast MRI in estimating the size of breast lesions requiring surgery. The postoperative histology size of the lesion was used as the gold standard. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred thirty-three non-benign lesions in 189 patients were included in the analyses. All the selected patients underwent CESM and at least one other conventional diagnostic exam (US, MG, or MRI). Subsequently, all the patients underwent surgery preceded by cytological/histological examination. The largest diameter of the lesion at imaging was measured by a radiologist with more than 10 years' experience and then compared with the size of the lesion in the histological sample at the surgery (gold standard). RESULTS: Among the 233 breast lesions, 196 were evaluated with US, 206 with MG and 160 with MRI. We found no statistically significant differences between size measurements using CESM and MRI compared with the measurements at the surgery (p value 0.63 and 0.51), whereas a significant difference was found for MG and US (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CESM is a reliable method for estimating the size of breast lesions: its performance seems superior to US and MG and comparable to MRI.
Authors: Puay Hoon Tan; Ian Ellis; Kimberly Allison; Edi Brogi; Stephen B Fox; Sunil Lakhani; Alexander J Lazar; Elizabeth A Morris; Aysegul Sahin; Roberto Salgado; Anna Sapino; Hironobu Sasano; Stuart Schnitt; Christos Sotiriou; Paul van Diest; Valerie A White; Dilani Lokuhetty; Ian A Cree Journal: Histopathology Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Mohammad Shoaib Abrahimi; Mark Elwood; Ross Lawrenson; Ian Campbell; Sandar Tin Tin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390