Can contrast enhanced mammography solve the problem of dense breast lesions?
Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) vs. MX alone and vs. mammography plus ultrasound (US) in dense breasts. Materials and methods: 60 women with suspected findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2014-09-01
|
| Series: | The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378603X14000692 |
| Summary: | Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) vs. MX alone and vs. mammography plus ultrasound (US) in dense breasts.
Materials and methods: 60 women with suspected findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated.
Results: The results from pathology identified 16 benign and 44 malignant cases. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX + CEDM than it was for MX alone using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX + CEDM than it was for MX (97.7% vs. 93.2%) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 12 histologically proven multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX + CEDM vs. 6 and 8 lesions by MX and US respectively.
Conclusion: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography + ultrasound especially in dense breasts. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0378-603X |