MR乳腺摄影与数字乳腺摄影和超声乳腺摄影的诊断准确性比较

IF 0.3 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Galician Medical Journal Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.21802/gmj.2022.1.4
Sreenidhi Sedguli, R. Gowda, Rupa Ranganathan, S. Kumar B.
{"title":"MR乳腺摄影与数字乳腺摄影和超声乳腺摄影的诊断准确性比较","authors":"Sreenidhi Sedguli, R. Gowda, Rupa Ranganathan, S. Kumar B.","doi":"10.21802/gmj.2022.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Even though the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance mammography (CE-MRM) is consistently high in the range of 94-100%, conventionally, digital mammography and sonomammography continue as standard imaging modalities for the detection and evaluation of breast disease. \nThe objective of the study was to detect additional lesions that go undetected by routine digital mammography and sonomammography using CE-MRM. \n Materials and Methods. In a prospective study, 68 patients who came for screening diagnostic mammogram and had breast lesions of Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category 3-6 were evaluated. All patients underwent bilateral digital mammography and targeted high-frequency sonomammography of the primary lesion. Those patients who were thought to possibly have breast cancer and to be candidates for surgical management were offered bilateral CE-MRM. \nResults. In this prospective study, we included 68 patients (mean age - 50.6 years, range - 30-73 years). A total of 74 lesions were evaluated. In detecting these lesions, digital mammography had a sensitivity of 40.0%, specificity of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 63.5%. CE-MRM sensitivity was found to be 71.7%, specificity - 96.6% and diagnostic accuracy - 83.7%. Among the 27 additional lesions detected by CE-MRM, histopathological evaluation confirmed only 19, indicating the sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.4%, positive predictive value of 67.8%, negative predictive value of 100%, diagnostic accuracy of 89.2%. \n Conclusions. The diagnostic accuracy of CE-MRM was found to be 83.7%, with a specificity of 96.6%. CE-MRM detected 19 additional lesions that were undetected by either digital mammography or ultrasonography. CE-MRM is sensitive in detecting additional malignant lesions which are not detected by other imaging modalities.","PeriodicalId":12537,"journal":{"name":"Galician Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Mammography in Comparison with Digital Mammography and Sonomammography\",\"authors\":\"Sreenidhi Sedguli, R. Gowda, Rupa Ranganathan, S. Kumar B.\",\"doi\":\"10.21802/gmj.2022.1.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Even though the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance mammography (CE-MRM) is consistently high in the range of 94-100%, conventionally, digital mammography and sonomammography continue as standard imaging modalities for the detection and evaluation of breast disease. \\nThe objective of the study was to detect additional lesions that go undetected by routine digital mammography and sonomammography using CE-MRM. \\n Materials and Methods. In a prospective study, 68 patients who came for screening diagnostic mammogram and had breast lesions of Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category 3-6 were evaluated. All patients underwent bilateral digital mammography and targeted high-frequency sonomammography of the primary lesion. Those patients who were thought to possibly have breast cancer and to be candidates for surgical management were offered bilateral CE-MRM. \\nResults. In this prospective study, we included 68 patients (mean age - 50.6 years, range - 30-73 years). A total of 74 lesions were evaluated. In detecting these lesions, digital mammography had a sensitivity of 40.0%, specificity of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 63.5%. CE-MRM sensitivity was found to be 71.7%, specificity - 96.6% and diagnostic accuracy - 83.7%. Among the 27 additional lesions detected by CE-MRM, histopathological evaluation confirmed only 19, indicating the sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.4%, positive predictive value of 67.8%, negative predictive value of 100%, diagnostic accuracy of 89.2%. \\n Conclusions. The diagnostic accuracy of CE-MRM was found to be 83.7%, with a specificity of 96.6%. CE-MRM detected 19 additional lesions that were undetected by either digital mammography or ultrasonography. CE-MRM is sensitive in detecting additional malignant lesions which are not detected by other imaging modalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Galician Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Galician Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21802/gmj.2022.1.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Galician Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21802/gmj.2022.1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景尽管对比增强乳腺磁共振乳房X射线照相术(CE-MRM)的灵敏度一直很高,在94-100%的范围内,但传统上,数字乳腺X射线照相和超声乳腺X射线摄影仍然是检测和评估乳腺疾病的标准成像模式。该研究的目的是检测常规数字乳房X光摄影和使用CE-MRM的超声乳房X光照相未检测到的其他病变。材料和方法。在一项前瞻性研究中,对68名前来筛查诊断性乳房X光检查并患有乳腺成像报告和数据系统3-6类乳腺病变的患者进行了评估。所有患者均接受了双侧数字乳房X光摄影术和原发病变的靶向高频超声乳房X光照相术。那些被认为可能患有癌症并有望接受手术治疗的患者接受了双侧CE-MRM。后果在这项前瞻性研究中,我们纳入了68名患者(平均年龄-50.6岁,范围30-73岁)。共评估了74处病变。在检测这些病变时,数字乳腺摄影的敏感性为40.0%,特异性为100%,诊断准确率为63.5%。CE-MRM的敏感性为71.7%,特异性96.6%,诊断准确度83.7%。在CE-MRM检测到的27个额外病变中,组织病理学评估仅确认了19个,表明敏感性为100%,特异性85.4%,阳性预测值为67.8%,阴性预测值为100%,诊断准确率为89.2%。CE-MRM的诊断准确率为83.7%,特异性为96.6%。CE-MRM还检测到19个未经数字乳腺摄影或超声检查的病变。CE-MRM在检测其他成像方式未检测到的其他恶性病变方面是敏感的。
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 MR Mammography in Comparison with Digital Mammography and Sonomammography
Background. Even though the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance mammography (CE-MRM) is consistently high in the range of 94-100%, conventionally, digital mammography and sonomammography continue as standard imaging modalities for the detection and evaluation of breast disease. The objective of the study was to detect additional lesions that go undetected by routine digital mammography and sonomammography using CE-MRM. Materials and Methods. In a prospective study, 68 patients who came for screening diagnostic mammogram and had breast lesions of Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category 3-6 were evaluated. All patients underwent bilateral digital mammography and targeted high-frequency sonomammography of the primary lesion. Those patients who were thought to possibly have breast cancer and to be candidates for surgical management were offered bilateral CE-MRM. Results. In this prospective study, we included 68 patients (mean age - 50.6 years, range - 30-73 years). A total of 74 lesions were evaluated. In detecting these lesions, digital mammography had a sensitivity of 40.0%, specificity of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 63.5%. CE-MRM sensitivity was found to be 71.7%, specificity - 96.6% and diagnostic accuracy - 83.7%. Among the 27 additional lesions detected by CE-MRM, histopathological evaluation confirmed only 19, indicating the sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.4%, positive predictive value of 67.8%, negative predictive value of 100%, diagnostic accuracy of 89.2%. Conclusions. The diagnostic accuracy of CE-MRM was found to be 83.7%, with a specificity of 96.6%. CE-MRM detected 19 additional lesions that were undetected by either digital mammography or ultrasonography. CE-MRM is sensitive in detecting additional malignant lesions which are not detected by other imaging modalities.
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
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Multiple Myeloma Patient with Secondary Liver and Tongue Involvement, Complicated by COVID-19-Induced ARDS: An Autopsy Case Report and Literature Review Medical Students’ Knowledge, Attitude, Practice, and Perceived Barriers Towards Medical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study Three Decades of Progress and Commitment: Brief Historical Landmarks of ‘Galician Medical Journal’ Journey Treatment of Teeth with Root Resorptions: A Case Report and Systematic Review Impact of Analytics Applying Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning on Enhancing Intensive Care Unit: A Narrative Review
×
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