Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Nov;30(11):6062-6071.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06950-2. Epub 2020 Jun 10.

Breast-specific gamma imaging or ultrasonography as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts

Zhigang Zhang  1   2 , Weilan Wang  3 , Xiaochen Wang  1 , Xiuyan Yu  1 , Ying Zhu  2 , Hongwei Zhan  4 , Zhigang Chen  1 , Baizhou Li  5 , Jian Huang  6
Affiliations

Breast-specific gamma imaging or ultrasonography as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts

Zhigang Zhang et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Mammography (MMG) shows decreased diagnostic accuracy in dense breast tissue, and thus, ultrasonography (US) and breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) have gradually been adopted for women with mammographically dense breasts. However, these two adjunct modalities have not been directly compared in previous studies. Hence, we investigated the adjunctive efficacy of US and BSGI in mammographically dense breasts.

Methods: This retrospective, comparative study recruited women with mammographically dense breasts. All enrolled women underwent US and BSGI as adjunctive imaging, and the comparative sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of combined MMG plus BSGI versus MMG plus US were evaluated. McNemar's test was used for paired binary data in this comparative analysis.

Results: From April 2013 to April 2016, 364 women with mammographically dense breasts and a final surgical or biopsy pathological diagnosis were recruited, comprising 218 cases of malignant disease (59.9%) and 146 cases of benign disease (40.1%). There was no difference between BSGI and US in enhancing the sensitivity of MMG diagnosis (Se-Difference 3.2%, p = 0.23), but the diagnostic specificity of MMG plus BSGI was superior to that of MMG plus US (Sp-Difference 10.3%, p = 0.003). The area under the ROC curve showed that MMG plus BSGI had better diagnostic accuracy than MMG plus US (0.90 vs. 0.83, p = 0.0019).

Conclusions: For women with mammographically dense breasts, MMG plus BSGI or US can improve the diagnostic accuracy. In addition, BSGI has high specificity and could reduce invasive biopsies and thus may represent a viable diagnostic imaging alternative for mammographically dense breasts.

Key points: • Both BSGI and US can be applied as adjunct imaging diagnostics in women with mammographically dense breasts. • The diagnostic accuracy of MMG plus BSGI was higher than that of MMG plus US. • BSGI has the potential to be used as an adjunct diagnostic modality in women with mammographically dense breasts.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast density; Molecular imaging; Technetium Tc 99m sestamibi; Ultrasonography.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2019) Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 69:7–34 - DOI
    1. Fan L, Strasser-Weippl K, Li J-J et al (2014) Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol 15:e279–e289 - DOI
    1. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS (2016) Tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 375:1438–1447
    1. Pike MC, Pearce CL (2013) Mammographic density, MRI background parenchymal enhancement and breast cancer risk. Ann Oncol 24(Suppl 8):viii37–viii41 - DOI
    1. Rice MS, Bertrand KA, VanderWeele TJ et al (2016) Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a mediation analysis. Breast Cancer Res 18:94

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources