Clinical breast cancer · 2021
Prediction of Underestimation Using Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Patients Diagnosed as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ on Preoperative Core Biopsy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Shin Hee Jung, Choi Woo Jung, Park Seo Young, Ahn Sei Hyun, Son Byung Ho, Chung Il Yong, Lee Jong Won, Ko Beom Seok, Kim Ji Sun, Chae Eun Young, Cha Joo Hee, Kim Hak Hee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To assess the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the prediction of DCIS underestimation in comparison with mammography, breast US, and breast MRI.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients diagnosed with DCIS on preoperative core biopsy. Visibility, lesion type, and extent on each imaging modality, CESM gray values (CGV) were evaluated. Pathologic features of core biopsy and surgery were recorded. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used for univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to find independent predictors for DCIS underestimation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 113 lesions in 108 patients were analyzed (50 pure DCIS; 63 underestimated DCIS). Visibility on mammography, breast US, CESM, and breast MRI were 44%, 76%, 58%, and 80% for pure DCIS, and 73%, 81%, 86%, and 92% for underestimated DCIS. Tumor extents on surgical pathology of pure and underestimated DCIS were 1.11 ± 1.35 cm and 2.61 ± 2.09 cm. On multivariate analysis, nuclear grade and suspected invasion on core biopsy, visibility on mammography, and extent on breast MRI were independent factors for the model 1, whereas nuclear grade on core biopsy, extent on CESM, and mean CGV on MLO-recombined image were independent factors for the model 2. Area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.843 for model 1 including breast MRI, whereas AUC was 0.823 for model 2 including CESM, which didn't show a significant difference (P = .968).
CONCLUSION: For detecting underestimated DCIS, CESM was superior to mammography and breast US, and comparable to breast MRI.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients diagnosed with DCIS on preoperative core biopsy. Visibility, lesion type, and extent on each imaging modality, CESM gray values (CGV) were evaluated. Pathologic features of core biopsy and surgery were recorded. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used for univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to find independent predictors for DCIS underestimation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 113 lesions in 108 patients were analyzed (50 pure DCIS; 63 underestimated DCIS). Visibility on mammography, breast US, CESM, and breast MRI were 44%, 76%, 58%, and 80% for pure DCIS, and 73%, 81%, 86%, and 92% for underestimated DCIS. Tumor extents on surgical pathology of pure and underestimated DCIS were 1.11 ± 1.35 cm and 2.61 ± 2.09 cm. On multivariate analysis, nuclear grade and suspected invasion on core biopsy, visibility on mammography, and extent on breast MRI were independent factors for the model 1, whereas nuclear grade on core biopsy, extent on CESM, and mean CGV on MLO-recombined image were independent factors for the model 2. Area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.843 for model 1 including breast MRI, whereas AUC was 0.823 for model 2 including CESM, which didn't show a significant difference (P = .968).
CONCLUSION: For detecting underestimated DCIS, CESM was superior to mammography and breast US, and comparable to breast MRI.