Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study

被引:158
作者
Dromain, Clarisse [1 ]
Thibault, Fabienne [2 ]
Diekmann, Felix [3 ]
Fallenberg, Eva M. [3 ]
Jong, Roberta A. [4 ]
Koomen, Marcia [5 ]
Hendrick, R. Edward [6 ]
Tardivon, Anne [2 ]
Toledano, Alicia [7 ]
机构
[1] Inst Cancerol Gustave Roussy, Dept Radiol, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[2] Inst Curie, Dept Radiol, F-75005 Paris, France
[3] Univ Hosp Charite, Dept Radiol, D-10117 Berlin, Germany
[4] Sunnybrook & Womens Coll Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Med Imaging, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
[5] Univ N Carolina, Dept Radiol, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[6] Univ Colorado, Dept Radiol, Aurora, CO 80045 USA
[7] Stat Collaborat, Stat, Washington, DC 20036 USA
来源
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH | 2012年 / 14卷 / 03期
关键词
DORFMAN-BERBAUM-METZ; MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD-ESTIMATION; MONTE-CARLO VALIDATION; BINORMAL ROC CURVES; X-RAY-SPECTRA; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; EXPERIENCE; READERS; US;
D O I
10.1186/bcr3210
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) +/- ultrasonography (US) with the diagnostic accuracy of MX +/- US alone. Methods: One hundred ten consenting women with 148 breast lesions (84 malignant, 64 benign) underwent two-view dual-energy CEDM in addition to MX and US using a specially modified digital mammography system (Senographe DS, GE Healthcare). Reference standard was histology for 138 lesions and follow-up for 12 lesions. Six radiologists from 4 institutions interpreted the images using high-resolution softcopy workstations. Confidence of presence (5-point scale), probability of cancer (7-point scale), and BI-RADS scores were evaluated for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity and ROC curve areas were estimated for each reader and overall. Visibility of findings on MX +/- CEDM and MX +/- US was evaluated with a Likert scale. Results: The average per-lesion sensitivity across all readers was significantly higher for MX +/- US +/- CEDM than for MX +/- US (0.78 vs. 0.71 using BIRADS, p = 0.006). All readers improved their clinical performance and the average area under the ROC curve was significantly superior for MX +/- US +/- CEDM than for MX +/- US ((0.87 vs 0.83, p = 0.045). Finding visibility was similar or better on MX +/- CEDM than MX +/- US in 80% of cases. Conclusions: Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as an adjunct to MX +/- US improves diagnostic accuracy compared to MX +/- US alone. Addition of iodinated contrast agent to MX facilitates the visualization of breast lesions.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
American College of Radiology (ACR), 2010, ACR MAN CONTR MED VE
[2]  
[Anonymous], MRMC 2 1 B 2 BRIEF D
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2003, BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[4]   COMPUTATION OF BREMSSTRAHLUNG X-RAY-SPECTRA AND COMPARISON WITH SPECTRA MEASURED WITH A GE(LI) DETECTOR [J].
BIRCH, R ;
MARSHALL, M .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1979, 24 (03) :505-517
[5]   ANALYSIS OF CANCERS MISSED AT SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY [J].
BIRD, RE ;
WALLACE, TW ;
YANKASKAS, BC .
RADIOLOGY, 1992, 184 (03) :613-617
[6]   Normalized glandular dose (DgN) coefficients for arbitrary x-ray spectra in mammography: Computer-fit values of Monte Carlo derived data [J].
Boone, JM .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (05) :869-875
[7]   Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media [J].
Diekmann, F ;
Diekmann, S ;
Jeunehomme, F ;
Muller, S ;
Hamm, B ;
Bick, U .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2005, 40 (07) :397-404
[8]   Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: Factorial experimental design [J].
Dorfman, DD ;
Berbaum, KS ;
Lenth, RV ;
Chen, YF ;
Donaghy, BA .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 1998, 5 (09) :591-602
[9]   RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC RATING ANALYSIS - GENERALIZATION TO THE POPULATION OF READERS AND PATIENTS WITH THE JACKKNIFE METHOD [J].
DORFMAN, DD ;
BERBAUM, KS ;
METZ, CE .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1992, 27 (09) :723-731
[10]  
Dromain Clarisse, 2006, AJR Am J Roentgenol, V187, pW528, DOI 10.2214/AJR.05.1944