对乳房极度致密、罹患乳腺癌风险较高的女性进行乳房 X 线造影检查的诊断准确性。

IF 12.1 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Radiology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1148/radiol.232580
Noam Nissan, Christopher E Comstock, Varadan Sevilimedu, Jill Gluskin, Victoria L Mango, Mary Hughes, R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson
{"title":"对乳房极度致密、罹患乳腺癌风险较高的女性进行乳房 X 线造影检查的诊断准确性。","authors":"Noam Nissan, Christopher E Comstock, Varadan Sevilimedu, Jill Gluskin, Victoria L Mango, Mary Hughes, R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson","doi":"10.1148/radiol.232580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (<i>P</i> = .003). However, there was decreased CEM specificity (88.9%; 1108 of 1246; 95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) compared with LE imaging (specificity, 96.2%; 1199 of 1246; 95% CI: 95.0, 97.2) (<i>P</i> < .001). Compared with specificity at baseline, CEM specificity at follow-up improved to 90.7% (705 of 777; 95% CI: 88.5, 92.7; <i>P</i> = .01). Conclusion Compared with LE imaging, CEM showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity in female patients with extremely dense breasts, although specificity improved at follow-up. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Lobbes in this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":20896,"journal":{"name":"Radiology","volume":"313 1","pages":"e232580"},"PeriodicalIF":12.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11535862/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Noam Nissan, Christopher E Comstock, Varadan Sevilimedu, Jill Gluskin, Victoria L Mango, Mary Hughes, R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Janice S Sung, Maxine S Jochelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1148/radiol.232580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (<i>P</i> = .003). However, there was decreased CEM specificity (88.9%; 1108 of 1246; 95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) compared with LE imaging (specificity, 96.2%; 1199 of 1246; 95% CI: 95.0, 97.2) (<i>P</i> < .001). Compared with specificity at baseline, CEM specificity at follow-up improved to 90.7% (705 of 777; 95% CI: 88.5, 92.7; <i>P</i> = .01). Conclusion Compared with LE imaging, CEM showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity in female patients with extremely dense breasts, although specificity improved at follow-up. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Lobbes in this issue.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20896,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology\",\"volume\":\"313 1\",\"pages\":\"e232580\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11535862/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.232580\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.232580","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

摘要

背景 对于乳房密度极高(乳腺成像报告和数据系统 [BI-RADS] D 类)的女性患者来说,乳房 X 线造影的判读具有挑战性,因为她们患乳腺癌的风险较高。对比增强乳腺 X 光造影术(CEM)最近已成为一种潜在的替代方法;然而,有关 CEM 在这一亚人群中的实用性的数据还很有限。目的 评估 CEM 在极致密乳房女性患者乳腺癌筛查中的诊断性能。材料与方法 该回顾性单机构研究纳入了 2012 年 12 月至 2022 年 3 月期间对无症状的极致密乳房女性患者进行的连续 CEM 检查。CEM检查的低能量(LE)图像相当于二维全视野数字乳腺X光检查。使用后处理算法构建了突出对比度增强区域的重组图像。使用 McNemar 检验计算并比较了 LE 图像和 CEM 图像(即包括 LE 和重组图像)的敏感性和特异性。结果 这项研究包括 1299 次 CEM 筛查(609 名女性患者;平均年龄为 50 岁 ± 9 [标码])。诊断出 16 例筛查出的癌症,2 例间期癌症。在 LE 成像检查中发现了 5 例癌症,在 CEM 检查中又发现了 11 例癌症(癌症检出率增加,每 1000 次检查中发现 8.7 例癌症)。CEM灵敏度为88.9%(18例中有16例;95% CI:65.3, 98.6),高于LE检查的灵敏度27.8%(18例中有5例;95% CI:9.7, 53.5)(P = .003)。然而,与 LE 成像(特异性为 96.2%;1246 例中有 1199 例;95% CI:95.0, 97.2)相比,CEM 特异性有所下降(88.9%;1246 例中有 1108 例;95% CI:87.0, 90.6)(P < .001)。与基线时的特异性相比,CEM随访时的特异性提高到90.7%(777例中的705例;95% CI:88.5,92.7;P = .01)。结论 与 LE 成像相比,CEM 对极度致密乳房女性患者的敏感性较高,但特异性较低,尽管随访时特异性有所提高。RSNA, 2024 另请参阅本期 Lobbes 的社论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (P = .003). However, there was decreased CEM specificity (88.9%; 1108 of 1246; 95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) compared with LE imaging (specificity, 96.2%; 1199 of 1246; 95% CI: 95.0, 97.2) (P < .001). Compared with specificity at baseline, CEM specificity at follow-up improved to 90.7% (705 of 777; 95% CI: 88.5, 92.7; P = .01). Conclusion Compared with LE imaging, CEM showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity in female patients with extremely dense breasts, although specificity improved at follow-up. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Lobbes in this issue.

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
Radiology
Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
35.20
自引率
3.00%
发文量
596
审稿时长
3.6 months
期刊介绍: Published regularly since 1923 by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), Radiology has long been recognized as the authoritative reference for the most current, clinically relevant and highest quality research in the field of radiology. Each month the journal publishes approximately 240 pages of peer-reviewed original research, authoritative reviews, well-balanced commentary on significant articles, and expert opinion on new techniques and technologies. Radiology publishes cutting edge and impactful imaging research articles in radiology and medical imaging in order to help improve human health.
期刊最新文献
Risk Factors for Pneumothorax Following Lung Biopsy: Another Peek at Air Leak. Sex-specific Associations between Left Ventricular Remodeling at MRI and Long-term Cardiovascular Risk. The Clinical Weight of Left Ventricular Mass and Shape. Assessment of Nonmass Lesions Detected with Screening Breast US Based on Mammographic Findings. CT-guided Coaxial Lung Biopsy: Number of Cores and Association with Complications.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1