Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate diagnostic performances of CESM for breast diseases with comparison to breast MRI in China.Materials and methodsSixty-eight patients with 77 breast lesions underwent MR and CESM. Two radiologists interpreted either MRI or CESM images, separately and independently. BI-RADS 1–3 and BI-RADS 4–5 were classified into the suspicious benign and suspicious malignant groups. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the two modalities. The agreement and correlation between maximum lesion diameter based on CESM and MRI, or CESM and pathology were analyzed.ResultsDiagnostic accuracy parameters for CESM were sensitivity 95.8 %, specificity 65.5 %, PPV 82.1 %, NPV 90.5 % and accuracy 84.4 %. The diagnostic accuracy parameters for breast MRI were sensitivity 93.8 %, specificity 82.8 %, PPV 88.2 %, NPV 92.3 %and accuracy 89.6 %. Area under the curve (AUC) of ROC was 0.96 for breast MRI and 0.88 for CESM. The Bland–Altman plots showed a mean difference of 0.7 mm with 95 % limits of agreement of 11.4 mm in tumor diameter measured using CESM and breast MRI. The differences of size measurement between CESM and breast MRI were significant, whereas no difference was observed between CESM and pathology as well as between breast MRI and pathology. The better correlation with pathological results was found in CESM than breast MRI.ConclusionOur study demonstrates that CESM possesses better diagnostic performances than breast MRI in terms of diagnostic sensitivity and lesion size assessment. And CESM is a good alternative method of screening breast cancer in high-risk people.

Highlights

  • Detection and diagnosis are essential for the prognosis and treatment of breast cancer

  • The Bland–Altman plots showed a mean difference of 0.7 mm with 95 % limits of agreement of 11.4 mm in tumor diameter measured using Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

  • The differences of size measurement between CESM and breast MRI were significant, whereas no difference was observed between CESM and pathology as well as between breast MRI and pathology

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Detection and diagnosis are essential for the prognosis and treatment of breast cancer. DM has a low diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts due to its masking effects (Pisano et al 2005). The US is usually considered as a supplemental screening method for women with dense breasts to increase the detection of breast cancer. Hand-held US screening by the radiologist has a high false-positive rate, which may not be a preferable method for breast surgeons (Berg et al 2008). MRI is considered the best imaging investigation for the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer (Schell et al 2009; Pickles et al 2016; O’Flynn et al 2016; Iacconi et al 2015). Breast MRI is cost-effective in screening high-risk women.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call