Author:
Siminiak Natalia,Pasiuk-Czepczyńska Anna,Godlewska Antonina,Wojtyś Piotr,Olejnik Magdalena,Michalak Joanna,Nowaczyk Piotr,Gajdzis Paweł,Godlewski Dariusz,Ruchała Marek,Czepczyński Rafał
Abstract
PurposeFull-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared.The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program.MethodsThe study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified.ResultsCEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM’s AUC was 0.97 and DBT’s 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23).ConclusionsIn this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy.
Reference24 articles.
1. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European society of breast imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey;Sardanelli;Eur Radiol,2017
2. 510(k) clearance for GE contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)
3. Digital breast tomosynthesis: an overview;Dhamija;Indian J Surg Oncol,2021
4. Contrast-enhanced mammography: Past, present, and future;Sogani;Clin Imaging,2021
5. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM);James;Clin Radiol,2018
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献