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
Comparative Study
. 2021 Nov;126(11):1407-1414.
doi: 10.1007/s11547-021-01400-5. Epub 2021 Jul 24.

Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer

Rossano Girometti  1 , Anna Linda  2 , Paola Conte  2 , Michele Lorenzon  2 , Isabella De Serio  1 , Katerina Jerman  1 , Viviana Londero  2 , Chiara Zuiani  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer

Rossano Girometti et al. Radiol Med. 2021 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare preoperative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DM + DBT) in detecting breast cancer (BC) and assessing its size.

Material and methods: We retrospectively included 78 patients with histological diagnosis of BC who underwent preoperative DM, DBT, and CEM over one year. Four readers, blinded to pathology and clinical information, independently evaluated DM + DBT versus CEM to detect BC and measure its size. Readers' experience ranged 3-10 years. We calculated the per-lesion cancer detection rate (CDR) and the complement of positive predictive value (1-PPV) of both methods, stratifying analysis on the total of lesions, index lesions, and additional lesions. The agreement in assessing cancer size versus pathology was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: 100 invasive BCs (78 index lesions and 22 additional lesions) were analyzed. Compared to DM + DBT, CEM showed higher overall CDR in less experienced readers (range 0.85-0.90 vs. 0.95-0.96), and higher CDR for additional lesions, regardless of the reader (range 0.54-0.68 vs. 0.77-0.86). CEM increased the detection of additional disease in dense breasts in all readers and non-dense breasts in less experienced readers only. The 1-PPV of CEM (range 0.10-0.18) was comparable to that of DM + DBT (range 0.09-0.19). At Bland-Altman analysis, DM + DBT and CEM showed comparable mean differences and limits of agreement in respect of pathologic cancer size.

Conclusion: Preoperative CEM improved the detection of additional cancer lesions compared to DM + DBT, particularly in dense breasts. CEM and DM + DBT achieved comparable performance in cancer size assessment.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Contrast-enhanced digital mammography; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Preoperative staging.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P et al (2008) Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3248–3258 - DOI
    1. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol 27:5640–5649 - DOI
    1. Brennan ME, McKessar M, Snook K et al (2017) Impact of selective use of breast MRI on surgical decision-making in women with newly diagnosed operable breast cancer. Breast 32:135–143 - DOI
    1. Clauser P, Mann R, Athanasiou A et al (2018) A survey by the European society of breast imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 28:1909–1918 - DOI
    1. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources