Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer
Published in: Breast Cancer 1/2017

01-01-2017 | Original Article

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts

Authors: Miki Mori, Sadako Akashi-Tanaka, Satoko Suzuki, Murasaki Ikeda Daniels, Chie Watanabe, Masanori Hirose, Seigo Nakamura

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography to compare clinical efficacy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and conventional digital mammography (MMG) with histopathology as gold standard in dense breasts.

Patients and methods

A total of 143 breasts of 72 women who underwent CESM and MMG between 2011 and 2014 at Showa University Hospital were analyzed.

Results

129 (90.2 %) of 143 breasts revealed dense breasts on MMG. 58 (40.6 %) of 143 breasts were diagnosed with breast cancer at histopathology. The remaining 85 breasts were diagnosed with benign findings after image assessments and/or core needle biopsy. CESM revealed 8 false-negative cases among 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 86.2 %) and 5 false-positive cases (specificity 94.1 %). Accuracy was 90.9 %. Conventional MMG was assessed true positive in 31 of 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 53.4 %) and false positive in 12 cases (specificity 85.9 %). Accuracy was 72.7 %. Sensitivity (p < 0.001), specificity (p = 0.016) and accuracy (p < 0.001) were significantly higher on CESM compared to MMG. MMG missed malignancy in 27 breasts. Of these, 25 were dense breasts. Of these 25, 20 (80.0 %) breasts were positive on CESM.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that CESM offers superior clinical performance compared to MMG. Use of CESM may decrease false negatives especially for women with dense breasts.
Literature
1.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening MMG, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225(1):165–75.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1622–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Warner E, Lockwood G, Tritchler D, Boyd NF. The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev. 1992;16:67–72.PubMed
4.
Brisson J, Merletti F, Sadowsky NL, Twaddle JA, Morrison AS, Cole P. Mammographic features of the breast and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115:428–37.PubMed
5.
Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic density and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:670–5.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, Bernstein L, Salane M, Parisky YR, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomar- kers Prev. 2003;12:332–8.
7.
Mammography Reporting System. ACR BI-RADS Atlas 5th Edition. American College of Radiology; 2013. p.121–140.
8.
Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST 1. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz DM, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: doesmammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, van Roozendaal L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from thebreast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.PubMed
11.
Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Huang PC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2394–403.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Chen Z, Wu AH, Gauderman WJ, Bernstein L, Ma H, Pike MC, et al. Does mammographic density reflect ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence rates? Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(2):140–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):1147–50.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Ellison-Loschmann L, McKenzie F, Highnam R, Cave A, Walker J, Jeffreys M. Age and ethnic differences in volumetric breast density in New Zealand women: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e70217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ. Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2412–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts
Authors
Miki Mori
Sadako Akashi-Tanaka
Satoko Suzuki
Murasaki Ikeda Daniels
Chie Watanabe
Masanori Hirose
Seigo Nakamura
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0681-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Breast Cancer 1/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Predictive and prognostic value of FDG-PET/CT imaging and different response evaluation criteria after primary systemic therapy of breast cancer

Special Feature

The need for supplemental breast cancer screening modalities: a perspective of population-based breast cancer screening programs in Japan

Original Article

The benefit of deep inspiration breath hold: evaluating cardiac radiation exposure in patients after mastectomy and after breast-conserving surgery

Original Article

Efficacy and safety of leuprorelin acetate 6-month depot, TAP-144-SR (6M), in combination with tamoxifen in postoperative, premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparative study

Original Article

A comparison of clinicopathological characteristics and long-term survival outcomes between symptomatic and screen-detected breast cancer in Japanese women

Original Article

Impact of young age on local control after partial breast irradiation in Japanese patients with early stage breast cancer
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits