Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
The Utility of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Evaluation of Bloody Nipple Discharge-A Multicenter Study in the Asian Population.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ong Ann-Hui Jamie, Goh Yonggeng, Quek Swee Tian, Pillay Premilla Gopinathan, Lee Herng-Sheng, Chou Chen-Pin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions in Asian patients with bloody nipple discharge (BND).
METHODS: This retrospective study included 58 women with BND (mean age: 51.7 years) who underwent standardized CEM at institutions in Taiwan and Singapore. Lesion characteristics (size, enhancement, conspicuity, shape, margins) were evaluated on CEM by blinded radiologists. Non-enhanced mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) within a defined timeframe were compared for diagnostic accuracy. Benign or malignant status was confirmed by biopsy or 2-year imaging follow-up.
RESULTS: Malignancy was found in 29 of 58 lesions (50.0%), with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) being the most common. CEM demonstrated a 100% negative predictive value (NPV) for non-enhancing lesions. Significant predictors of malignancy on multivariate analysis include enhancing lesions of size ≥ 1.5 cm (p-value 0.025) and suspicious morphological features (irregular/spiculated margins, irregular shape, segmental/linear NME distribution) (p-value < 0.001). CEM outperformed MMG (sensitivity: 58.6%) and US (sensitivity: 79.3%), achieving a sensitivity of 100% and the highest diagnostic accuracy at 81.3%. Additionally, a CEM size cut-off of 1.5 cm yielded a sensitivity of 73.5% and a specificity of 84.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: CEM effectively differentiates benign from malignant lesions in patients with BND, improving diagnostic accuracy and potentially reducing unnecessary interventions.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 58 women with BND (mean age: 51.7 years) who underwent standardized CEM at institutions in Taiwan and Singapore. Lesion characteristics (size, enhancement, conspicuity, shape, margins) were evaluated on CEM by blinded radiologists. Non-enhanced mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) within a defined timeframe were compared for diagnostic accuracy. Benign or malignant status was confirmed by biopsy or 2-year imaging follow-up.
RESULTS: Malignancy was found in 29 of 58 lesions (50.0%), with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) being the most common. CEM demonstrated a 100% negative predictive value (NPV) for non-enhancing lesions. Significant predictors of malignancy on multivariate analysis include enhancing lesions of size ≥ 1.5 cm (p-value 0.025) and suspicious morphological features (irregular/spiculated margins, irregular shape, segmental/linear NME distribution) (p-value < 0.001). CEM outperformed MMG (sensitivity: 58.6%) and US (sensitivity: 79.3%), achieving a sensitivity of 100% and the highest diagnostic accuracy at 81.3%. Additionally, a CEM size cut-off of 1.5 cm yielded a sensitivity of 73.5% and a specificity of 84.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: CEM effectively differentiates benign from malignant lesions in patients with BND, improving diagnostic accuracy and potentially reducing unnecessary interventions.