European radiology · 2023
Role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative detection of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: a comparison with low-energy image and magnetic resonance imaging.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Wang Liping, Wang Ping, Shao Huafei, Li Jun, Yang Qinglin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with low-energy image (LEI) alone and with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed 98 pure DCIS lesions in 96 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within 2 weeks preoperatively. The diagnostic performances of each imaging modality, lesion morphology, and extent were evaluated.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of CEM to DCIS was similar to that of MRI (92.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.77) and was significantly higher than that of LEI alone (76.5%, p = 0.002). The sensitivity of CEM to calcified DCIS (92.4%) was not significantly different from LEI alone (92.4%) and from MRI (93.9%, p = 1.00). However, CEM contributed to the simultaneous comparison of calcifications with enhancements. CEM had considerably higher sensitivity compared with LEI alone (93.8% vs. 43.8%, p < 0.001) and performed similarly to MRI (93.8%, p = 1.00) for noncalcified DCIS. All DCIS lesions were enhanced in MRI, whereas 94.9% (93/98) were enhanced in CEM. Non-mass enhancement was the most common presentation (CEM 63.4% and MRI 66.3%). The difference between the lesion size on each imaging modality and the histopathological size was smallest in MRI, followed by CEM, and largest in LEI.
CONCLUSION: CEM was more sensitive than LEI alone and comparable to MRI in DCIS diagnosis. The enhanced morphology of DCIS in CEM was consistent with that in MRI. CEM was superior to LEI alone in size measurement of DCIS.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study investigated the value of CEM in the diagnosis and evaluation of DCIS, aiming to offer a reference for the selection of examination methods for DCIS and contribute to the early diagnosis and precise treatment of DCIS.
KEY POINTS: • DCIS is an important indication for breast surgery. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for DCIS treatment and prognosis. • CEM overcomes the deficiency of mammography in noncalcified DCIS diagnosis, exhibiting similar sensitivity to MRI; and CEM contributes to the comparison of calcification and enhancement of calcified DCIS, thereby outperforming MRI. • CEM is superior to LEI alone and slightly inferior to MRI in the size evaluation of DCIS.
METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed 98 pure DCIS lesions in 96 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within 2 weeks preoperatively. The diagnostic performances of each imaging modality, lesion morphology, and extent were evaluated.
RESULTS: The sensitivity of CEM to DCIS was similar to that of MRI (92.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.77) and was significantly higher than that of LEI alone (76.5%, p = 0.002). The sensitivity of CEM to calcified DCIS (92.4%) was not significantly different from LEI alone (92.4%) and from MRI (93.9%, p = 1.00). However, CEM contributed to the simultaneous comparison of calcifications with enhancements. CEM had considerably higher sensitivity compared with LEI alone (93.8% vs. 43.8%, p < 0.001) and performed similarly to MRI (93.8%, p = 1.00) for noncalcified DCIS. All DCIS lesions were enhanced in MRI, whereas 94.9% (93/98) were enhanced in CEM. Non-mass enhancement was the most common presentation (CEM 63.4% and MRI 66.3%). The difference between the lesion size on each imaging modality and the histopathological size was smallest in MRI, followed by CEM, and largest in LEI.
CONCLUSION: CEM was more sensitive than LEI alone and comparable to MRI in DCIS diagnosis. The enhanced morphology of DCIS in CEM was consistent with that in MRI. CEM was superior to LEI alone in size measurement of DCIS.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study investigated the value of CEM in the diagnosis and evaluation of DCIS, aiming to offer a reference for the selection of examination methods for DCIS and contribute to the early diagnosis and precise treatment of DCIS.
KEY POINTS: • DCIS is an important indication for breast surgery. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for DCIS treatment and prognosis. • CEM overcomes the deficiency of mammography in noncalcified DCIS diagnosis, exhibiting similar sensitivity to MRI; and CEM contributes to the comparison of calcification and enhancement of calcified DCIS, thereby outperforming MRI. • CEM is superior to LEI alone and slightly inferior to MRI in the size evaluation of DCIS.