Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results

被引:202
作者
Dromain, Clarisse [1 ,2 ]
Thibault, Fabienne [3 ]
Muller, Serge [4 ]
Rimareix, Francoise [5 ]
Delaloge, Suzette [6 ]
Tardivon, Anne [3 ]
Balleyguier, Corinne [2 ]
机构
[1] Inst Cancerol Gustave Roussy, Dept Radiol, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[2] Inst Cancerol Gustave Roussy, Dept Imaging, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[3] Inst Curie, Dept Imaging, F-75248 Paris 05, France
[4] GE Healthcare, F-78530 Buc, France
[5] Inst Gustave Roussy, Dept Surg, F-94805 Villejuif, France
[6] Inst Gustave Roussy, Dept Med, F-94805 Villejuif, France
关键词
BREAST-CANCER; DIAGNOSIS; MORTALITY; WOMEN; US;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US). 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated. The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p < 0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively. Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
引用
收藏
页码:565 / 574
页数:10
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer [J].
Berg, WA ;
Gutierrez, L ;
NessAiver, MS ;
Carter, WB ;
Bhargavan, M ;
Lewis, RS ;
Ioffe, OB .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 233 (03) :830-849
[2]   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
[3]   COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC MAMMOGRAPHY USING A CONVENTIONAL BODY SCANNER [J].
CHANG, CHJ ;
NESBIT, DE ;
FISHER, DR ;
FRITZ, SL ;
DWYER, SJ ;
TEMPLETON, AW ;
LIN, F ;
JEWELL, WR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1982, 138 (03) :553-558
[4]  
Diekmann F, 2007, EUR RADIOL, V17, P174
[5]  
Dromain Clarisse, 2006, AJR Am J Roentgenol, V187, pW528, DOI 10.2214/AJR.05.1944
[6]   Reduction in breast cancer mortality from organized service screening with mammography:: 1.: Further confirmation with extended data [J].
Duffy, SW ;
Tabár, L ;
Chen, THH ;
Smith, RA ;
Holmberg, L ;
Jonsson, H ;
Lenner, P ;
Nyström, L ;
Törnberg, S .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2006, 15 (01) :45-51
[7]   Contrast-enhanced CT: Value for diagnosing local breast cancer recurrence after conservative treatment [J].
Hagay, C ;
Cherel, PJP ;
deMaulmont, CE ;
Plantet, MM ;
Gilles, R ;
Floiras, JLG ;
Garbay, JR ;
Pallud, CM .
RADIOLOGY, 1996, 200 (03) :631-638
[8]   Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging [J].
Hollingsworth, Alan B. ;
Stough, Rebecca G. ;
O'Dell, Carol A. ;
Brekke, Charles E. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2008, 196 (03) :389-397
[9]   Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical experience [J].
Jong, RA ;
Yaffe, MJ ;
Skarpathiotakis, M ;
Shumak, RS ;
Danjoux, NM ;
Gunesekara, A ;
Plewes, DB .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 228 (03) :842-850
[10]   Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations [J].
Kolb, TM ;
Lichy, J ;
Newhouse, JH .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 (01) :165-175