nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.07.2014 | Breast

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme

verfasst von: Marc B. I. Lobbes, Ulrich Lalji, Janneke Houwers, Estelle C. Nijssen, Patty J. Nelemans, Lori van Roozendaal, Marjolein L. Smidt, Esther Heuts, Joachim E. Wildberger

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Feasibility studies have shown that contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) increases diagnostic accuracy of mammography. We studied diagnostic accuracy of CESM in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme, who have a lower disease prevalence than previously published papers on CESM.

Methods

During 6 months, all women referred to our hospital were eligible for CESM. Two radiologists blinded to the final diagnosis provided BI-RADS classifications for conventional mammography and CESM. Statistical significance of differences between mammography and CESM was calculated using McNemar’s test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for both imaging modalities.

Results

Of the 116 eligible women, 113 underwent CESM. CESM increased sensitivity to 100.0 % (+3.1 %), specificity to 87.7 % (+45.7 %), PPV to 76.2 % (+36.5 %) and NPV to 100.0 % (+2.9 %) as compared to mammography. Differences between conventional mammography and CESM were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). A similar trend was observed in the ROC curve. For conventional mammography, AUC was 0.779. With CESM, AUC increased to 0.976 (p < 0.0001). In addition, good agreement between tumour diameters measured using CESM, breast MRI and histopathology was observed.

Conclusion

CESM increases diagnostic performance of conventional mammography, even in lower prevalence patient populations such as referrals from breast cancer screening.

Key Points

• CESM is feasible in the workflow of referrals from routine breast screening.

• CESM is superior to mammography, even in low disease prevalence populations.

• CESM has an extremely high negative predictive value for breast cancer.

• CESM is comparable to MRI in assessment of breast cancer extent.

• CESM is comparable to histopathology in assessment of breast cancer extent.

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773–1783PubMedCrossRef

Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC et al (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138:168–175PubMedCrossRef

Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging part I: Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–378PubMedCrossRef

Lobbes MBI, Smidt ML, Houwers J, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Wildberger JE (2013) Contrast-enhanced mammography: techniques, current results and potential indications. Clin Radiol 68:935–944PubMedCrossRef

Timmers JMH, Van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM et al (2012) The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol 22:1717–1723PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Stacul F, Van der Molen AJ, Reimer P et al (2011) Contrast-induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 21:2527–2541PubMedCrossRef

Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland (NABON) National guideline breast cancer 2012, Amsterdam, NABON, 2012

Obuchowksi NA (2003) Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 229:3–8CrossRef

Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

Liston J, Wilson R (2010) NHSBSP clinical guidelines for breast cancer screening assessment, 3rd edn. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield

11.

Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, Garbay JR, Delaloge S (2009) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 69:34–42PubMedCrossRef

12.

American College of Radiology (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), vol 4. American College of Radiology, Reston

13.

Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the area under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843PubMed

14.

Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRef

15.

Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266:743–751PubMedCrossRef

16.

Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 24:256–264PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lobbes MB, Nelemans PJ (2013) Good correlation does not automatically imply good agreement: the trouble with comparing tumour size by breast MRI versus histopathology. Eur J Radiol 82:e906–e907PubMedCrossRef

18.

Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumour angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 187:528–537CrossRef

19.

Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574PubMedCrossRef

20.

Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56PubMedCrossRef

21.

Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA et al (2013) Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 266:89–95PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

22.

Michell M, Iqbal A, Wasan RK et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 67:976–981PubMedCrossRef

23.

Badr S, Laurent N, Régis C et al (2014) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. Diagn Interv Imaging 95:245–258PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lobbes MB, Cleutjens JP, Lima Passos V et al (2012) Density is in the eye of the beholder: visual versus semi-automated assessment of breast density on standard mammograms. Insights Imaging 3:91–99PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Titel: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme
verfasst von: Marc B. I. Lobbes
Ulrich Lalji
Janneke Houwers
Estelle C. Nijssen
Patty J. Nelemans
Lori van Roozendaal
Marjolein L. Smidt
Esther Heuts
Joachim E. Wildberger
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2014
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme