Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography: Comparison With MRI and Mammography.
J Breast Imaging
; 3(4): 448-454, 2021 Aug 12.
Article
en En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-38424791
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with MRI and mammography (MG) based on histopathological results.METHODS:
In this IRB-approved study, written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Images from 40 patients (62 lesions) with suspicious findings on US between March 2018 and August 2018 were evaluated. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of CEM, MRI, and MG were evaluated and compared within a 95% confidence interval. Maximum dimensions of lesions were measured and correlations of results were evaluated with Spearman's Rho test.RESULTS:
In the histopathological analysis, 66% (41/62) of lesions were malignant and 34% (21/62) of lesions were benign. Contrast-enhanced mammography, MRI, and MG had sensitivities of 100% (41/41), 100% (41/41), and 80% (33/41), respectively. The sensitivity of CEM and MRI was significantly better than that of MG (Pâ =â 0.03). The NPVs of CEM (100%, 7/7) and MRI (100%, 14/14) were statistically higher than the NPV of MG (60%, 12/20) (Pâ =â 0.03). The false-positive rates for CEM, MRI, and MG were 33% (7/21), 66% (14/21), and 42% (9/21), respectively. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a significantly lower false-positive rate than MRI (Pâ <â 0.001). Mammography had the highest false-negative rate, missing 19% (8/41) of malignant lesions.CONCLUSION:
Contrast-enhanced mammography has similar performance characteristics to MRI and improved performance characteristics relative to MG. In particular, CEM and MRI have similar sensitivity and NPVs and both are superior in each of these metrics to MG.
Texto completo:
1
Bases de datos:
MEDLINE
Idioma:
En
Revista:
J Breast Imaging
Año:
2021
Tipo del documento:
Article
País de afiliación:
Turquía