View in EDS PDF Full Text

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.
Authors: Fallenberg, Eva1 eva.fallenberg@charite.de, Schmitzberger, Florian1, Amer, Heba1, Ingold-Heppner, Barbara2, Balleyguier, Corinne3, Diekmann, Felix4, Engelken, Florian1, Mann, Ritse5, Renz, Diane6, Bick, Ulrich1, Hamm, Bernd1, Dromain, Clarisse3, Fallenberg, Eva M7 (AUTHOR), Schmitzberger, Florian F7 (AUTHOR), Mann, Ritse M8 (AUTHOR), Renz, Diane M9 (AUTHOR)
Source: European Radiology. Jul2017, Vol. 27 Issue 7, p2752-2764. 13p. 2 Black and White Photographs, 2 Diagrams, 5 Charts, 2 Graphs.
Subjects: Breast cancer diagnosis, Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, Breast cancer treatment, Mammograms, Pearson correlation (Statistics), Receiver operating characteristic curves, Breast tumors, Comparative studies, Longitudinal method, Magnetic resonance imaging, Research methodology, Medical cooperation, Research, Evaluation research, Contrast media, Drug administration, Drug dosage
Abstract: Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study.Methods: One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.Results: Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI.Conclusions: This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.Key Points: • CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 123476745
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fallenberg%2C+Eva%22">Fallenberg, Eva</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> eva.fallenberg@charite.de</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schmitzberger%2C+Florian%22">Schmitzberger, Florian</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amer%2C+Heba%22">Amer, Heba</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ingold-Heppner%2C+Barbara%22">Ingold-Heppner, Barbara</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Balleyguier%2C+Corinne%22">Balleyguier, Corinne</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Diekmann%2C+Felix%22">Diekmann, Felix</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Engelken%2C+Florian%22">Engelken, Florian</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mann%2C+Ritse%22">Mann, Ritse</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Renz%2C+Diane%22">Renz, Diane</searchLink><relatesTo>6</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bick%2C+Ulrich%22">Bick, Ulrich</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hamm%2C+Bernd%22">Hamm, Bernd</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dromain%2C+Clarisse%22">Dromain, Clarisse</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fallenberg%2C+Eva+M%22">Fallenberg, Eva M</searchLink><relatesTo>7</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schmitzberger%2C+Florian+F%22">Schmitzberger, Florian F</searchLink><relatesTo>7</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mann%2C+Ritse+M%22">Mann, Ritse M</searchLink><relatesTo>8</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Renz%2C+Diane+M%22">Renz, Diane M</searchLink><relatesTo>9</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22European+Radiology%22">European Radiology</searchLink>. Jul2017, Vol. 27 Issue 7, p2752-2764. 13p. 2 Black and White Photographs, 2 Diagrams, 5 Charts, 2 Graphs.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Breast+cancer+diagnosis%22">Breast cancer diagnosis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Contrast-enhanced+magnetic+resonance+imaging%22">Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Breast+cancer+treatment%22">Breast cancer treatment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mammograms%22">Mammograms</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pearson+correlation+%28Statistics%29%22">Pearson correlation (Statistics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Receiver+operating+characteristic+curves%22">Receiver operating characteristic curves</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Breast+tumors%22">Breast tumors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+studies%22">Comparative studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+method%22">Longitudinal method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Magnetic+resonance+imaging%22">Magnetic resonance imaging</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+cooperation%22">Medical cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+research%22">Evaluation research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Contrast+media%22">Contrast media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drug+administration%22">Drug administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Drug+dosage%22">Drug dosage</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: <bold>Objectives: </bold>To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study.<bold>Methods: </bold>One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.<bold>Results: </bold>Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.<bold>Key Points: </bold>• CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=123476745
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s00330-016-4650-6
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 2752
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Breast cancer diagnosis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Breast cancer treatment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mammograms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pearson correlation (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Receiver operating characteristic curves
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Breast tumors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Magnetic resonance imaging
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Contrast media
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drug administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Drug dosage
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fallenberg, Eva
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schmitzberger, Florian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amer, Heba
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ingold-Heppner, Barbara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Balleyguier, Corinne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Diekmann, Felix
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Engelken, Florian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mann, Ritse
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Renz, Diane
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bick, Ulrich
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hamm, Bernd
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dromain, Clarisse
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fallenberg, Eva M
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schmitzberger, Florian F
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mann, Ritse M
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Renz, Diane M
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Text: Jul2017
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09387994
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Radiology
              Type: main
ResultId 1