Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance of automatic breast ultrasound and spectral mammography as complementary methods to mammography examination.

Polish journal of radiology Pub Date : 2025-02-03 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr/199755
Marta Pawlak, Wojciech Rudnicki, Tadeusz Popiela, Lukasz Brandt, Malgorzata Dobrowolska, Milena Lipinska, Elżbieta Łuczyńska
{"title":"Comparative analysis of diagnostic performance of automatic breast ultrasound and spectral mammography as complementary methods to mammography examination.","authors":"Marta Pawlak, Wojciech Rudnicki, Tadeusz Popiela, Lukasz Brandt, Malgorzata Dobrowolska, Milena Lipinska, Elżbieta Łuczyńska","doi":"10.5114/pjr/199755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This single-centre study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS). The study involved 81 patients with focal breast lesions, who underwent ABUS, full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and CEM.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A total of 169 focal lesions were found in 81 patients, of which 110 lesions were histopathologically verified, 92 were malignant, 5 were B3 lesions, and 13 were benign. On CEM 19 additional lesions not visible on other imaging examinations were found, and as many as 36 new lesions were detected on ABUS. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 106 from 169 on ABUS, 65 on FFDM, and 88 on CEM. The highest correlation between the lesion's margin and its histopathological character was found in FFDM (<i>p</i> < 0.00), then ABUS (<i>p</i> = 0.038), and the lowest in CEM (<i>p</i> = 0.043). Compliance in determining the lesions' size comparing to histopathology as a gold standard was the highest for ABUS (<i>p</i> = 0.258) and lower for CEM (<i>p</i> = 0.012).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM, and CEM was, respectively: 80.43, 90.22, and 93.48; specificity: 27.78, 11.11, and 11.11; positive predictive value (PPV): 85.06, 83.84, and 84.31; negative predictive value (NPV): 21.74, 18.18, and 25; and accuracy: 71.82, 77.27, and 80. The sensitivity and accuracy of the combination of FFDM and ABUS were, respectively, 100 (<i>p</i> = 0.02) and 84.55 (AUC = 0.947) and for the combination of FFDM + CEM 93.48 (<i>p</i> = 0.25) and 79.09 (AUC = 0.855).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study confirms that both ABUS and CEM may serve as a valuable complementary method for FFDM.</p>","PeriodicalId":94174,"journal":{"name":"Polish journal of radiology","volume":"90 ","pages":"e55-e65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11973704/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr/199755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This single-centre study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS). The study involved 81 patients with focal breast lesions, who underwent ABUS, full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and CEM.

Material and methods: A total of 169 focal lesions were found in 81 patients, of which 110 lesions were histopathologically verified, 92 were malignant, 5 were B3 lesions, and 13 were benign. On CEM 19 additional lesions not visible on other imaging examinations were found, and as many as 36 new lesions were detected on ABUS. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 106 from 169 on ABUS, 65 on FFDM, and 88 on CEM. The highest correlation between the lesion's margin and its histopathological character was found in FFDM (p < 0.00), then ABUS (p = 0.038), and the lowest in CEM (p = 0.043). Compliance in determining the lesions' size comparing to histopathology as a gold standard was the highest for ABUS (p = 0.258) and lower for CEM (p = 0.012).

Results: The sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM, and CEM was, respectively: 80.43, 90.22, and 93.48; specificity: 27.78, 11.11, and 11.11; positive predictive value (PPV): 85.06, 83.84, and 84.31; negative predictive value (NPV): 21.74, 18.18, and 25; and accuracy: 71.82, 77.27, and 80. The sensitivity and accuracy of the combination of FFDM and ABUS were, respectively, 100 (p = 0.02) and 84.55 (AUC = 0.947) and for the combination of FFDM + CEM 93.48 (p = 0.25) and 79.09 (AUC = 0.855).

Conclusions: The study confirms that both ABUS and CEM may serve as a valuable complementary method for FFDM.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

乳腺自动超声与乳腺x线造影作为乳腺x线造影检查补充方法诊断效能的比较分析。
目的:本单中心研究包括对比分析对比增强乳房x线摄影(CEM)和自动乳房超声(ABUS)的诊断性能。该研究纳入了81例局灶性乳腺病变患者,他们接受了ABUS、全视野数字乳房x线摄影(FFDM)和CEM。材料与方法:81例患者共发现局灶性病变169个,经组织病理学证实病变110个,恶性92个,B3型病变5个,良性13个。在CEM上发现了19个其他影像学检查未见的额外病变,ABUS上发现了多达36个新病变。ABUS组169例,FFDM组65例,CEM组88例,多病变患者中检出病变数为106例。病变边缘与组织病理学特征的相关性以FFDM最高(p < 0.00),其次为ABUS (p = 0.038), CEM最低(p = 0.043)。与组织病理学相比,确定病变大小作为金标准的依从性在ABUS中最高(p = 0.258),在CEM中较低(p = 0.012)。结果:ABUS、FFDM、CEM的敏感性分别为80.43、90.22、93.48;特异性:27.78、11.11和11.11;阳性预测值(PPV)分别为85.06、83.84和84.31;阴性预测值(NPV)分别为21.74、18.18和25;准确率分别为71.82、77.27和80。FFDM与ABUS联合检测的灵敏度和准确度分别为100 (p = 0.02)和84.55 (AUC = 0.947), FFDM + CEM联合检测的灵敏度和准确度分别为93.48 (p = 0.25)和79.09 (AUC = 0.855)。结论:本研究证实ABUS和CEM都可以作为FFDM的有价值的补充方法。
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
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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