• Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is slowly being introduced into clinical practice. • Access to breast MRI is limited by availability and lack of reimbursement. • Initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI than conventional mammography. • CESM showed a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography offers promise, seemingly providing information comparable to MRI.
• 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.
The aim of this study was to report initial clinical experience with a 320-slice CT scanner and to perform an image quality evaluation. 26 patients with presumptive cerebrovascular pathology underwent 320-slice CT. Single-rotation CT of the head, incremental CT angiography (three-dimensional (3D) CTA) as well as four-dimensional whole-brain CTA (4D CTA) and whole-brain CT perfusion (CTP) were performed and the resulting images were assessed for quality and compared with those obtained with 64-slice CT protocols. 320-slice CT neuroimaging could be performed in all cases. The image quality of 320-slice CT of the head and 3D CTA was inferior to that of the 64-slice protocols. The image quality of 4D 320-slice CTA was rated as inferior to both 320- and 64-slice 3D CTA. 4D CTA-CTP imaging added information with pivotal clinical implications. 320-slice CT neuroimaging is feasible technique that permits whole-brain 4D imaging and has the potential to identify pathologies with altered haemodynamics. However, image quality is a limitation of this technique at present.
The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with mammography (MG) and combined CESM + MG in terms of detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers in order to assess the potential to reduce radiation exposure. A total of 118 patients underwent MG and CESM and had final histological results. CESM was performed as a bilateral examination starting 2 min after injection of iodinated contrast medium. Three independent blinded radiologists read the CESM, MG, and CESM + MG images with an interval of at least 4 weeks to avoid case memorization. Sensitivity and size measurement correlation and differences were calculated, average glandular dose (AGD) levels were compared, and breast densities were reported. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests were performed. A total of 107 imaging pairs were available for analysis. Densities were ACR1: 2, ACR2: 45, ACR3: 42, and ACR4: 18. Mean AGD was 1.89 mGy for CESM alone, 1.78 mGy for MG, and 3.67 mGy for the combination. In very dense breasts, AGD of CESM was significantly lower than MG. Sensitivity across readers was 77.9 % for MG alone, 94.7 % for CESM, and 95 % for CESM + MG. Average tumor size measurement error compared to postsurgical pathology was -0.6 mm for MG, +0.6 mm for CESM, and +4.5 mm for CESM + MG (p < 0.001 for CESM + MG vs. both modalities). CESM alone has the same sensitivity and better size assessment as CESM + MG and was significantly better than MG with only 6.2 % increase in AGD. The combination of CESM + MG led to systematic size overestimation. When a CESM examination is planned, additional MG can be avoided, with the possibility of saving up to 61 % of radiation dose, especially in patients with dense breasts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.