Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Characterization of True and False Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.
Phillips, Jordana; U Achibiri, Janeiro; Kim, Geunwon; Quintana, Liza M; J Mehta, Rashmi; S Mehta, Tejas.
Afiliação
  • Phillips J; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center - radiology dept., Pathology, Boston MA. Electronic address: jordana.phillips@bmc.org.
  • U Achibiri J; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center - radiology dept., Pathology, Boston MA. Electronic address: janeiro.okafor721@icloud.com.
  • Kim G; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center - radiology dept., Pathology, Boston MA.
  • Quintana LM; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center - radiology dept., Pathology, Boston MA. Electronic address: lmquinta@bidmc.harvard.edu.
  • J Mehta R; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center - radiology dept., Pathology, Boston MA.
  • S Mehta T; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center - radiology dept., Pathology, Boston MA.
Acad Radiol ; 2022 Feb 18.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35190261
ABSTRACT
RATIONALE AND

OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of this paper is to characterize true and false positive findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and correlate enhancement pattern and method of detection with pathology outcomes. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of diagnostic CEM performed from December 2015 through December 2019 for which biopsy was recommended. Background parenchymal enhancement, tissue density, finding features, pathologic/clinical outcomes, and method of detection were captured. CEM includes low-energy images (LE), similar to standard 2D mammography, and recombined images (RI) that show enhancement. 'MG-detected' findings were identified on mammography or LE. 'RI-detected' findings were identified due to enhancement on RI. The positive predictive value (PPV2) was calculated on a per-case and a per-finding level. Comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS:

One hundred sixty CEM cases with 220 findings were evaluated with a case PPV2 of 58.1%. 32.3% (71/220) of lesions were RI-detected.  The PPV2 of RI-detected enhancement was 40.8% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 22.2%, 32%, and 51.4% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. The PPV2 of MG-detected enhancement was 73.5% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 50%, 54.1%, and 83.8% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. There were 100 false positives findings, 42 of which were RI-detected.

CONCLUSION:

PPV2 of diagnostic CEM is within the range of other diagnostic breast imaging exams. However false positives remain a challenge, especially for RI-detected findings. Additional efforts to improve specificity of RI-detected findings are worthwhile.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Acad Radiol Assunto da revista: RADIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Acad Radiol Assunto da revista: RADIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article