联合DBT和增强乳房x线摄影评估胸肌侵犯:回顾性多阅读器研究。

Olena O Weaver, Alejandro Contreras, Ethan O Cohen, Mary S Guirguis, Megha M Kapoor, Marion E Scoggins, Rosa F Hwang, Rosalind P Candelaria, Wei T Yang, Jennifer B Dennison, Jia Sun, Gary J Whitman
{"title":"联合DBT和增强乳房x线摄影评估胸肌侵犯:回顾性多阅读器研究。","authors":"Olena O Weaver, Alejandro Contreras, Ethan O Cohen, Mary S Guirguis, Megha M Kapoor, Marion E Scoggins, Rosa F Hwang, Rosalind P Candelaria, Wei T Yang, Jennifer B Dennison, Jia Sun, Gary J Whitman","doi":"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.04.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate combined digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography (DBT/CEM) for predicting pectoralis muscle invasion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective multi-reader cohort study included research patients who underwent combined DBT/CEM for breast cancer staging and had prepectoral masses. Images were independently reviewed by six fellowship-trained breast radiologists. Diagnostic performance, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement were calculated for each image type/modality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 10 patients with prepectoral masses on DBT/CEM, muscle invasion was present in 3 and absent in 7. The overall diagnostic accuracy of DBT/CEM for PMI was 0.6 (range 0.4-0.9); for predefined radiologic signs it was 0.5-0.7 for low energy (LE) CEM, 0.4-0.7 for DBT, and 0.4-0.8 for recombined (RC) CEM. Muscle deformity on MLO views had the highest accuracy (0.7-0.8). On a scale of 1-3, mean radiologist confidence for combined DBT/CEM was 1.9 (1.5-2.3; SD=0.65). Median confidence ranged from 1.9 for RC to 2.2 for DBT. Per-case reader agreement was poor (K=-0.01) for DBT/CEM; poor to slight (K= -0.13-0.40, median 0.28) for RC; slight to fair (K = 0.04-0.43, median 0.27 and K = 0.02-0.42, median 0.19, respectively) for DBT and LE. In two patients with subpectoral breast implants CEM was accurate in PMI detection, while MRI had one false-positive result.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined DBT/CEM accuracy and inter-reader agreement are suboptimal for PMI evaluation, except in patients with breast implants. RC images marginally improve accuracy compared to LE images but have lowest radiologist confidence. DBT has lowest accuracy but highest confidence. Muscle deformity on MLO view was the most accurate sign.</p><p><strong>Critical relevance statement: </strong>Combined DBT/CEM demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic accuracy, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement for detecting pectoralis muscle invasion (PMI) in prepectoral breast cancer (BC) except for patients with subpectoral breast implants, where recombined images on implant-displaced CEM views performed better than MRI.</p>","PeriodicalId":93969,"journal":{"name":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Pectoralis muscle invasion using combined DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography: Retrospective multi-reader study.\",\"authors\":\"Olena O Weaver, Alejandro Contreras, Ethan O Cohen, Mary S Guirguis, Megha M Kapoor, Marion E Scoggins, Rosa F Hwang, Rosalind P Candelaria, Wei T Yang, Jennifer B Dennison, Jia Sun, Gary J Whitman\",\"doi\":\"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.04.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate combined digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography (DBT/CEM) for predicting pectoralis muscle invasion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective multi-reader cohort study included research patients who underwent combined DBT/CEM for breast cancer staging and had prepectoral masses. Images were independently reviewed by six fellowship-trained breast radiologists. Diagnostic performance, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement were calculated for each image type/modality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 10 patients with prepectoral masses on DBT/CEM, muscle invasion was present in 3 and absent in 7. The overall diagnostic accuracy of DBT/CEM for PMI was 0.6 (range 0.4-0.9); for predefined radiologic signs it was 0.5-0.7 for low energy (LE) CEM, 0.4-0.7 for DBT, and 0.4-0.8 for recombined (RC) CEM. Muscle deformity on MLO views had the highest accuracy (0.7-0.8). On a scale of 1-3, mean radiologist confidence for combined DBT/CEM was 1.9 (1.5-2.3; SD=0.65). Median confidence ranged from 1.9 for RC to 2.2 for DBT. Per-case reader agreement was poor (K=-0.01) for DBT/CEM; poor to slight (K= -0.13-0.40, median 0.28) for RC; slight to fair (K = 0.04-0.43, median 0.27 and K = 0.02-0.42, median 0.19, respectively) for DBT and LE. In two patients with subpectoral breast implants CEM was accurate in PMI detection, while MRI had one false-positive result.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined DBT/CEM accuracy and inter-reader agreement are suboptimal for PMI evaluation, except in patients with breast implants. RC images marginally improve accuracy compared to LE images but have lowest radiologist confidence. DBT has lowest accuracy but highest confidence. Muscle deformity on MLO view was the most accurate sign.</p><p><strong>Critical relevance statement: </strong>Combined DBT/CEM demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic accuracy, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement for detecting pectoralis muscle invasion (PMI) in prepectoral breast cancer (BC) except for patients with subpectoral breast implants, where recombined images on implant-displaced CEM views performed better than MRI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current problems in diagnostic radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current problems in diagnostic radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.04.005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2025.04.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨数字乳腺断层合成与增强造影(DBT/CEM)联合预测胸肌侵犯的价值。方法:这项回顾性的多读者队列研究纳入了接受DBT/CEM联合乳腺癌分期和有乳房前肿块的研究患者。图像由六名接受过奖学金培训的乳腺放射科医生独立审查。对每种图像类型/模态计算诊断性能、读者信心和读者间一致性。结果:10例胸膜前肿物行DBT/CEM检查,3例有肌侵犯,7例无肌侵犯。DBT/CEM对PMI的总体诊断准确率为0.6(范围为0.4-0.9);对于预定义的放射学征象,低能量(LE) CEM为0.5-0.7,DBT为0.4-0.7,重组(RC) CEM为0.4-0.8。MLO视图上的肌肉畸形精度最高(0.7-0.8)。在1-3的评分范围内,放射科医生对联合DBT/CEM的平均信心为1.9 (1.5-2.3;SD = 0.65)。中位置信度范围从RC的1.9到DBT的2.2。DBT/CEM的每病例读者一致性较差(K=-0.01);RC差至轻微(K= -0.13-0.40,中位数0.28);DBT和LE从轻微到一般(K = 0.04-0.43,中位数0.27和K = 0.02-0.42,中位数0.19)。在2例胸下假体患者中,CEM对PMI检测准确,而MRI有1例假阳性结果。结论:除乳房植入物患者外,DBT/CEM联合准确性和阅读器间一致性在PMI评估中并不理想。与LE图像相比,RC图像略微提高了准确性,但放射科医生的信心最低。DBT的准确度最低,但置信度最高。MLO视图上的肌肉畸形是最准确的征象。关键相关性声明:联合DBT/CEM在检测胸前乳腺癌(BC)的胸肌侵犯(PMI)方面表现出次优的诊断准确性、读者信心和读者间一致性,但胸下乳房植入物患者除外,在植入物移位的CEM视图上重组图像的表现优于MRI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Pectoralis muscle invasion using combined DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography: Retrospective multi-reader study.

Objectives: To evaluate combined digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography (DBT/CEM) for predicting pectoralis muscle invasion.

Methods: This retrospective multi-reader cohort study included research patients who underwent combined DBT/CEM for breast cancer staging and had prepectoral masses. Images were independently reviewed by six fellowship-trained breast radiologists. Diagnostic performance, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement were calculated for each image type/modality.

Results: Among 10 patients with prepectoral masses on DBT/CEM, muscle invasion was present in 3 and absent in 7. The overall diagnostic accuracy of DBT/CEM for PMI was 0.6 (range 0.4-0.9); for predefined radiologic signs it was 0.5-0.7 for low energy (LE) CEM, 0.4-0.7 for DBT, and 0.4-0.8 for recombined (RC) CEM. Muscle deformity on MLO views had the highest accuracy (0.7-0.8). On a scale of 1-3, mean radiologist confidence for combined DBT/CEM was 1.9 (1.5-2.3; SD=0.65). Median confidence ranged from 1.9 for RC to 2.2 for DBT. Per-case reader agreement was poor (K=-0.01) for DBT/CEM; poor to slight (K= -0.13-0.40, median 0.28) for RC; slight to fair (K = 0.04-0.43, median 0.27 and K = 0.02-0.42, median 0.19, respectively) for DBT and LE. In two patients with subpectoral breast implants CEM was accurate in PMI detection, while MRI had one false-positive result.

Conclusion: Combined DBT/CEM accuracy and inter-reader agreement are suboptimal for PMI evaluation, except in patients with breast implants. RC images marginally improve accuracy compared to LE images but have lowest radiologist confidence. DBT has lowest accuracy but highest confidence. Muscle deformity on MLO view was the most accurate sign.

Critical relevance statement: Combined DBT/CEM demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic accuracy, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement for detecting pectoralis muscle invasion (PMI) in prepectoral breast cancer (BC) except for patients with subpectoral breast implants, where recombined images on implant-displaced CEM views performed better than MRI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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