TY - JOUR
T1 - Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography
T2 - Initial clinical results
AU - Dromain, Clarisse
AU - Thibault, Fabienne
AU - Muller, Serge
AU - Rimareix, Françoise
AU - Delaloge, Suzette
AU - Tardivon, Anne
AU - Balleyguier, Corinne
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by a grant from the Ministère Français de la Jeunesse, de l'Education et de la Recherche.
PY - 2011/3/1
Y1 - 2011/3/1
N2 - Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US). Materials and methods: 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated. Results: The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p<0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively. Conclusion: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
AB - Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US). Materials and methods: 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated. Results: The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p<0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively. Conclusion: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79751535823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
DO - 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 20839001
AN - SCOPUS:79751535823
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 21
SP - 565
EP - 574
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 3
ER -