Does Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Outperform Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions or Vice Versa?

IF 0.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1007/s13193-024-02090-x
Veenu Singla, Pallavi T, Saumya Soni, Tulika Singh, Siddhant Khare, Amanjit Bal
{"title":"Does Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Outperform Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detection and Characterization of Breast Lesions or Vice Versa?","authors":"Veenu Singla, Pallavi T, Saumya Soni, Tulika Singh, Siddhant Khare, Amanjit Bal","doi":"10.1007/s13193-024-02090-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mammograms are the mainstay of diagnostic breast imaging and cancer screening. Despite mammography advances like full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), these imaging techniques provide purely structural information. Though the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), its widespread use has been limited due to high cost, long scan times, and lack of availability. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a novel technique which combines dual energy FFDM with injection of iodinated contrast. It provides structural and functional imaging similar to MRI. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in characterizing breast lesions and to analyze additional findings revealed by CEM and examining their implications for patient management. This was a single center prospective observational study on 58 women with BI-RADS category of 3, 4, and 5 breast lesions who underwent CEM following DBT. CEM detected 62 lesions, out of which 46 were categorized as suspicious/malignant and 16 as benign. On histopathology, 44 turned out to be malignant and 18 benign. CEM achieved a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 88%. In contrast, DBT identified 56 of these 62 lesions (42 were malignant and 14 were benign on histopathology), with sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 77.8%. Compared to DBT, CEM provided superior delineation of disease extent, depicting multifocal and multicentric lesions, as well as picking up lesions in contralateral breasts, thereby altering patient management.</p>","PeriodicalId":46707,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":"16 1","pages":"333-343"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-024-02090-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mammograms are the mainstay of diagnostic breast imaging and cancer screening. Despite mammography advances like full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), these imaging techniques provide purely structural information. Though the most sensitive modality for breast cancer detection is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), its widespread use has been limited due to high cost, long scan times, and lack of availability. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a novel technique which combines dual energy FFDM with injection of iodinated contrast. It provides structural and functional imaging similar to MRI. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in characterizing breast lesions and to analyze additional findings revealed by CEM and examining their implications for patient management. This was a single center prospective observational study on 58 women with BI-RADS category of 3, 4, and 5 breast lesions who underwent CEM following DBT. CEM detected 62 lesions, out of which 46 were categorized as suspicious/malignant and 16 as benign. On histopathology, 44 turned out to be malignant and 18 benign. CEM achieved a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 88%. In contrast, DBT identified 56 of these 62 lesions (42 were malignant and 14 were benign on histopathology), with sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 77.8%. Compared to DBT, CEM provided superior delineation of disease extent, depicting multifocal and multicentric lesions, as well as picking up lesions in contralateral breasts, thereby altering patient management.

对比增强乳房x线照相术在检测和表征乳腺病变方面是否优于数字乳腺断层合成,反之亦然?
乳房x光检查是诊断乳房成像和癌症筛查的主要手段。尽管乳房x线照相术取得了长足的进步,如全视场数字乳房x线照相术(FFDM)和数字乳房断层合成术(DBT),但这些成像技术提供的只是纯粹的结构信息。虽然最敏感的乳腺癌检测方式是磁共振成像(MRI),但由于成本高、扫描时间长、缺乏可用性,其广泛使用受到限制。对比增强乳房x线摄影(CEM)是一种将双能量FFDM与碘化造影剂注射相结合的新技术。它提供类似于MRI的结构和功能成像。本研究的目的是评估和比较CEM和DBT在乳腺病变特征方面的诊断性能,分析CEM显示的其他发现,并检查其对患者管理的影响。这是一项单中心前瞻性观察研究,研究对象为58名BI-RADS分类为3、4和5乳腺病变的女性,她们在DBT后接受了CEM。CEM检出62个病灶,其中46个为可疑/恶性,16个为良性。组织病理学结果显示,44例为恶性,18例为良性。CEM的灵敏度为100%,特异性为88%。相比之下,DBT鉴别出62个病变中的56个(组织病理学上为恶性42个,良性14个),敏感性为95%,特异性为77.8%。与DBT相比,CEM提供了更好的疾病范围描绘,描绘了多灶和多中心病变,以及在对侧乳房中发现病变,从而改变了患者的管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology aims to encourage and promote clinical and research activities pertaining to Surgical Oncology. It also aims to bring in the concept of multidisciplinary team approach in management of various cancers. The Journal would publish original article, point of technique, review article, case report, letter to editor, profiles of eminent teachers, surgeons and instititions - a short (up to 500 words) of the Cancer Institutions, departments, and oncologist, who founded new departments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信