下载PDF
{"title":"Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection.","authors":"Joao V Horvat, Tali Amir, Gordon P Watt, Christopher E Comstock, Noam Nissan, Maxine S Jochelson, Janice S Sung","doi":"10.1148/radiol.242006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging modality that generates low-energy (LE) images that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that show lesion vascularity such as MRI. Supplemental whole-breast US increases cancer detection rates when performed with FFDM but not with MRI. Purpose To compare the performance of CEM, LE images, and LE images supplemented with whole-breast US in breast cancer detection during screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study recruited female participants from December 2014 to February 2019 who were scheduled for screening mammography and whole-breast US. CEM (including LE images and recombined images) and whole-breast US images were interpreted by separate breast radiologists blinded to the findings on images from the other modality. Statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and abnormal interpretation rate were assessed. Biopsy recommendation rate and PPVs of biopsies performed (PPV<sub>3</sub>) were calculated at the lesion level. Results Across 468 participants (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-59 years]; all female participants), nine screen-detected cancers were diagnosed in eight participants: one cancer was depicted at LE imaging alone (cancer detection rate, 2.1 of 1000), four were depicted at LE imaging with whole-breast US (cancer detection rate, 8.5 of 1000), and eight were depicted at CEM (cancer detection rate, 17.1 of 1000; <i>P</i> < .05). The abnormal interpretation rate was 10.3% (48 of 468) for LE images, 13.7% (64 of 468) for LE images with whole-breast US, and 18.6% (87 of 468) for CEM (<i>P</i> < .001). The biopsy recommendation rate was 15.0 of 1000 for LE images, 38.4 of 1000 for LE images with whole-breast US, and 42.7 of 1000 for CEM. Seven biopsies were recommended based on LE images (PPV<sub>3</sub> of one of seven [14.3%]), 18 biopsies based on LE images with whole-breast US (with a PPV<sub>3</sub> of five of 18 [27.8%]), and 20 biopsies based on CEM (PPV<sub>3</sub> of 9 of 20 [45.0%]). Conclusion Breast cancer detection improved with CEM compared with LE images alone or LE images with whole-breast US. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310698 © RSNA, 2025 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i></p>","PeriodicalId":20896,"journal":{"name":"Radiology","volume":"314 3","pages":"e242006"},"PeriodicalIF":15.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11950873/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.242006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
引用
批量引用
Abstract
Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging modality that generates low-energy (LE) images that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that show lesion vascularity such as MRI. Supplemental whole-breast US increases cancer detection rates when performed with FFDM but not with MRI. Purpose To compare the performance of CEM, LE images, and LE images supplemented with whole-breast US in breast cancer detection during screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study recruited female participants from December 2014 to February 2019 who were scheduled for screening mammography and whole-breast US. CEM (including LE images and recombined images) and whole-breast US images were interpreted by separate breast radiologists blinded to the findings on images from the other modality. Statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and abnormal interpretation rate were assessed. Biopsy recommendation rate and PPVs of biopsies performed (PPV3 ) were calculated at the lesion level. Results Across 468 participants (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-59 years]; all female participants), nine screen-detected cancers were diagnosed in eight participants: one cancer was depicted at LE imaging alone (cancer detection rate, 2.1 of 1000), four were depicted at LE imaging with whole-breast US (cancer detection rate, 8.5 of 1000), and eight were depicted at CEM (cancer detection rate, 17.1 of 1000; P < .05). The abnormal interpretation rate was 10.3% (48 of 468) for LE images, 13.7% (64 of 468) for LE images with whole-breast US, and 18.6% (87 of 468) for CEM (P < .001). The biopsy recommendation rate was 15.0 of 1000 for LE images, 38.4 of 1000 for LE images with whole-breast US, and 42.7 of 1000 for CEM. Seven biopsies were recommended based on LE images (PPV3 of one of seven [14.3%]), 18 biopsies based on LE images with whole-breast US (with a PPV3 of five of 18 [27.8%]), and 20 biopsies based on CEM (PPV3 of 9 of 20 [45.0%]). Conclusion Breast cancer detection improved with CEM compared with LE images alone or LE images with whole-breast US. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310698 © RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article.
对比增强乳房x线照相术和低能量成像在乳腺癌检测中的比较,有或没有补充全乳超声。
对比增强乳房x线摄影(CEM)是一种新兴的方式,它产生的低能量(LE)图像在视觉上等同于全视野数字乳房x线摄影(FFDM)和显示病变血管的重组图像,如MRI。补充全乳超声增加了FFDM的癌症检出率,而MRI没有。目的比较超声造影(CEM)、超声造影(LE)和超声造影(LE)加全乳超声(US)在乳腺癌筛查中的作用。材料与方法本前瞻性研究于2014年12月至2019年2月招募女性参与者,计划进行乳房x光筛查和全乳超声检查。CEM(包括LE图像和重组图像)和全乳超声图像由独立的乳腺放射科医生解释,对其他方式的图像结果不知情。评估敏感性和特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值和异常解释率的统计学差异。在病变水平计算活检推荐率和活检ppv (PPV3)。468名参与者(中位年龄54岁[IQR, 48-59岁];所有女性参与者),在8名参与者中诊断出9种筛查检测到的癌症:1种癌症仅在LE成像中被描述(癌症检出率,1000分之2.1),4种癌症在LE成像中被描述为全乳腺超声(癌症检出率,1000分之8.5),8种被描述为CEM(癌症检出率,1000分之17.1;P < 0.05)。LE影像的异常解释率为10.3% (48 / 468),LE影像合并全乳US的异常解释率为13.7% (64 / 468),CEM的异常解释率为18.6% (87 / 468)(P < 0.001)。LE影像推荐活检率为15.0 / 1000,全乳超声LE影像推荐活检率为38.4 / 1000,CEM推荐活检率为42.7 / 1000。基于LE影像推荐活检7例(7例中有1例PPV3),基于LE影像推荐活检18例(18例中有5例PPV3[27.8%]),基于CEM推荐活检20例(20例中有9例PPV3[45.0%])。结论与单纯LE影像或LE影像联合全乳超声相比,CEM能提高乳腺癌的检出率。ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02310698©RSNA, 2025本文提供补充材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。