Contrast-enhanced mammography in the management of breast architectural distortions and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies

被引:1
|
作者
Bellini, Chiara [1 ]
Pugliese, Francesca [1 ]
Bicchierai, Giulia [1 ]
Amato, Francesco [2 ]
De Benedetto, Diego [1 ]
Di Naro, Federica [1 ]
Boeri, Cecilia [1 ]
Vanzi, Ermanno [1 ]
Migliaro, Giuliano [1 ]
Incardona, Ludovica [1 ]
Tommasi, Cinzia [3 ]
Orzalesi, Lorenzo [3 ]
Miele, Vittorio [4 ]
Nori, Jacopo [1 ]
机构
[1] Azienda Osped Univ Careggi, Dept Radiol, Breast Imaging Unit, Florence, Italy
[2] Osped San Giovanni Dio, Dept Radiol, Breast Imaging Unit, Agrigento, Italy
[3] Azienda Osped Univ Careggi, Breast Surg Unit, Florence, Italy
[4] Azienda Osped Univ Careggi, Dept Radiol, Florence, Italy
关键词
Breast cancer; CEM; Distortions; FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; CORE NEEDLE-BIOPSY; SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY; TOMOSYNTHESIS; OUTCOMES; MRI; METAANALYSIS; MALIGNANCY; IMAGES; OCCULT;
D O I
10.1007/s12282-024-01599-x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundTo assess contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the management of BI-RADS3 breast architectural distortions (AD) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 328 women with 332 ADs detected on DBT between 2017 and 2021 and selected those classified as BI-RADS3 receiving CEM as problem-solving. In CEM recombined images, we evaluated AD's contrast enhancement (CE) according to its presence/absence, type, and size. AD with enhancement underwent imaging-guided biopsy while AD without enhancement follow-up or biopsy if detected in high/intermediate-risk women.ResultsAD with enhancement were 174 (52.4%): 72 (41.4%) were malignant lesions, 102 (59.6%) false positive results: 28 (16%) B3 lesions, and 74 (42.5%) benign lesions. AD without enhancement were 158 (47.6%): 26 (16.5%) were subjected to biopsy (1 malignant and 25 benign) while the other 132 cases were sent to imaging follow-up, still negative after two years. CEM's sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracy were 98.63%, 60.62%, 41.38%, 99.37%, and 68.98%. The AUC determined by ROC was 0.796 (95% CI, 0.749-0.844).ConclusionCEM has high sensitivity and NPV in evaluating BI-RADS3 AD and can be a complementary tool in assessing AD, avoiding unnecessary biopsies without compromising cancer detection.
引用
收藏
页码:851 / 857
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
    Wong, Christopher Yung Yuen
    Lee, Shu Yi Sonia
    Mahmood, Rameysh Danovani
    SINGAPORE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 65 (03) : 195 - 201
  • [32] Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography
    Monreal, Sherri
    RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, 2018, 89 (05) : 518 - 520
  • [33] The Future of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
    Covington, Matthew F.
    Pizzitola, Victor J.
    Lorans, Roxanne
    Pockaj, Barbara A.
    Northfelt, Donald W.
    Appleton, Catherine M.
    Patel, Bhavika K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2018, 210 (02) : 292 - 300
  • [34] Contrast-enhanced digital mammography
    Dromain, Clarisse
    Balleyguier, Corinne
    Adler, Ghazal
    Garbay, Jean Remi
    Delaloge, Suzette
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2009, 69 (01) : 34 - 42
  • [35] The Role of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography After Cryoablation of Breast Cancer
    Corines, Marina J.
    Sogani, Julie
    Hogan, Molly P.
    Mango, Victoria L.
    Bryce, Yolanda
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2024, 222 (02)
  • [36] Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced mammography in the characterization of breast asymmetry
    Dawoud, Bassant Mahmoud
    Darweesh, Abdelmonem Nooman
    Hefeda, Mohamed Mohamed
    Kamal, Rasha Mohamed
    Younis, Rasha Lotfy
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2022, 53 (01):
  • [37] Comparison between Breast MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography
    Luczynska, Elzbieta
    Heinze-Paluchowska, Sylwia
    Hendrick, Edward
    Dyczek, Sonia
    Rys, Janusz
    Herman, Krzysztof
    Blecharz, Pawel
    Jakubowicz, Jerzy
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2015, 21 : 1358 - 1367
  • [38] Added value of contrast-enhanced mammography in assessment of breast asymmetries
    Wessam, Rasha
    Gomaa, Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed
    Fouad, Mona Ahmed
    Mokhtar, Sherif Mohamed
    Tohamey, Yasmin Mounir
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 92 (1098):
  • [39] Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery
    Carnahan, Molly
    Pockaj, Barbara
    Pizzitola, Victor
    Giurescu, Marina
    Lorans, Roxanne
    Eversman, William
    Sharpe, Richard
    Cronin, Patricia
    Northfelt, Donald
    Anderson, Karen
    Ernst, Brenda
    Patel, Bhavika
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2021, 81 (04)
  • [40] Breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Competitiveness or complementary?
    Valfort, Alix
    Jalaguier-Coudray, Aurelie
    Villard-Mahjoub, Rim
    IMAGERIE DE LA FEMME, 2019, 29 (01) : 4 - 7