Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background. Breast cancer (BC) can be unifocal, multifocal, multicentric (MCBC) and bilateral according to number and localization of tumors. MCBC has different clinical and biological characteristics compared to unifocal BC, for example, a higher risk of lymph node involvement, a more aggressive natural history and a worse prognosis. Therefore, accurate diagnosis and detection of MCBC is one of the main tasks of imaging.Objective: to compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and digital mammography (DM) in the diagnosis of MCBC.Materials and methods. The study included 438 women with suspected BC. The results of DM and CESM were compared with the results of a pathomorphological study performed after surgery or biopsy to assess the effectiveness of imaging modalities. DM was performed for all women using a Senographe DS (GE, USA) unit. CESM was performed after intravenous injection of non-ionic contrast agents using injector with breast compression in the craniocaudal and mediolateral projections. The study was performed for both glands regardless of the location of the suspicious lesion in order to timely diagnose clinically asymptomatic bilateral cancer. The final diagnosis was made based on the results of the pathomorphological examination. MCBC was diagnosed when two or more tumors at a distance of 3 cm or more from each other were detected. Visualization of additional grouped calcifications of malignant type occupying a small portion of breast tissue (more than 15 pieces per 1 sq. cm) was considered as another mammographic sign of MCBC.Results. According to the pathomorphological examination BC was diagnosed in 154 (35 %) women out of 438 examined patients. MCBC was identified in 25 (16 %) of 154 patients. CESM was more effective than DM in detecting MCBC with sensitivity of 88.0 % vs 48.0 % (p = 0.002), accuracy of 92.2 % vs 90.9 %, negative predictive value of 97.6 % vs 90.8 % (p = 0.02), respectively. But the specificity was significantly higher in DM than in CESM – 99.2 % vs 93.0 % (p = 0.009), respectively, and the positive predictive value did not differ significantly (p = 0.12).Conclusion. CESM is a more sensitive method for diagnosing MCBC compared to DM with sensitivity of 88.0 % vs 48.0 %. The high negative predictive value of CESM (97.6 %) confirms the fact that this modality is an effective method for planning surgery and radiation therapy.
Background. Breast cancer (BC) can be unifocal, multifocal, multicentric (MCBC) and bilateral according to number and localization of tumors. MCBC has different clinical and biological characteristics compared to unifocal BC, for example, a higher risk of lymph node involvement, a more aggressive natural history and a worse prognosis. Therefore, accurate diagnosis and detection of MCBC is one of the main tasks of imaging.Objective: to compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and digital mammography (DM) in the diagnosis of MCBC.Materials and methods. The study included 438 women with suspected BC. The results of DM and CESM were compared with the results of a pathomorphological study performed after surgery or biopsy to assess the effectiveness of imaging modalities. DM was performed for all women using a Senographe DS (GE, USA) unit. CESM was performed after intravenous injection of non-ionic contrast agents using injector with breast compression in the craniocaudal and mediolateral projections. The study was performed for both glands regardless of the location of the suspicious lesion in order to timely diagnose clinically asymptomatic bilateral cancer. The final diagnosis was made based on the results of the pathomorphological examination. MCBC was diagnosed when two or more tumors at a distance of 3 cm or more from each other were detected. Visualization of additional grouped calcifications of malignant type occupying a small portion of breast tissue (more than 15 pieces per 1 sq. cm) was considered as another mammographic sign of MCBC.Results. According to the pathomorphological examination BC was diagnosed in 154 (35 %) women out of 438 examined patients. MCBC was identified in 25 (16 %) of 154 patients. CESM was more effective than DM in detecting MCBC with sensitivity of 88.0 % vs 48.0 % (p = 0.002), accuracy of 92.2 % vs 90.9 %, negative predictive value of 97.6 % vs 90.8 % (p = 0.02), respectively. But the specificity was significantly higher in DM than in CESM – 99.2 % vs 93.0 % (p = 0.009), respectively, and the positive predictive value did not differ significantly (p = 0.12).Conclusion. CESM is a more sensitive method for diagnosing MCBC compared to DM with sensitivity of 88.0 % vs 48.0 %. The high negative predictive value of CESM (97.6 %) confirms the fact that this modality is an effective method for planning surgery and radiation therapy.
Background. The accurate and early diagnosis of breast cancer can improve efficacy of the treatment. The standard diagnostic methods such as mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance tomography have a pivotal role in the detection of breast tumors, however, in some cases, they have low diagnostic accuracy. Mammoscintigraphy (MSG) / molecular breast imaging (MBI) with tumor-specific radiopharmacy 99mTc-Technetril in patients with breast cancer can considerably increase the accuracy of diagnosis. However, the diagnostic performance of MSG / MBI in the detection of different biological subtypes of breast cancer is still under investigation.Aim. To evaluate the accuracy of MSG / MBI with 99mTc-Technetril in diagnosis of different biological subtypes of breast cancer.Materials and methods. The analysis included the results of MSG / MBI of 1080 patients (2154 mammary glands), who were examined for suspected breast cancer. MSG / MBI were performed 5–15 min after intravenous injection into the vein of one of the feet of 370–740 MBq of tumor-specific radiopharmacy 99mTc-Technetril. Examinations performed from 2007–2020 was carried out on the emission computed tomography Forte (Philips); since 2020 the molecular visualization has been providing on the special gamma-camera Discovery NM750b (General Electric). The obtained data were evaluated by 2 experienced radiologists. Verification of changes in breasts was provided by morphological examination (1060 cases) or dynamic observation.Results. The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of MSG / MBI were 90 %, 98 %, 95 % correspondingly. When diagnosing tumors with a diameter of up to 10 mm, the sensitivity of MSG / MBI was decreased to 83 %. In patients with various biological subtypes, the sensitivity of MSG / MBI was as follows: luminal A – 88 %; luminal B– – 91 %; luminal B+ – 92 %; triple negative – 93 %; HER2-positive – 96 %. The intensity of tumor uptake depended on the biological subtype of breast cancer. The average values of the 99mTc-Technetril uptake coefficient were as follows: luminal A – 1.59; luminal B– – 1.71; luminal B+ – 1.95; triple negative – 1.93; HER2-positive – 2.22.Conclusion. Retrospective analysis indicate high diagnostic performance of MSG / MBI: sensitivity – 90 %, specificity – 98 %, accuracy – 95 %. There are significant differences in the intensity of 99mTc-Technetril accumulation in tumors in patients with different biological subtypes of breast cancer (p = 0.01–0.004). MSG / MBI characterized by significant differences in the sensitivity in the diagnosis of luminal A and HER2+ breast cancer subtypes: 88 % and 96 %, respectively (p = 0.02).
Introduction. Differential diagnosis of some pathological processes in the breast is difficult on the background of dense breast tissue. This often leads to false conclusions and to late diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) or unreasonable biopsy in a benign process. 50% of breast cancers detected less than 12 months after elective mammography were associated with high density of breast tissue. An important advantage of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is that it does not depend on the size of the lesions and the X-ray density of the breast tissue. Objective. To compare the diagnostic performance of CESM and digital mammography (DM) in detection of breast cancer in a group of women with dense breast tissue.Materials and methods. The data of 438 patients with suspected breast cancer examined from August 2018 to January 2021 were analyzed in the study. The mean age of women was 50 ± 11 years (from 21 to 86 years). In the study group 154 (35%) malignant and 284 (65%) benign lesions were identified. All lesions were histologically verified. Breast tissue density corresponded to types A and B in 161 patients and corresponded to C and D types in 277 patients according to the ACR classification. 154 cases of breast cancer were identified, including 49 patients with density A and B and 105 patients with density C and D types.Results. Sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of DM were 85.7%, 87.3%, 86.8%, respectively. Diagnostic performance of CESM significantly higher than of DM with sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 96.8% (p < 0.001), 93.3% (p = 0.015), 94.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. CESM had high positive and negative predictive values of 88.7% (p = 0.012) and 98.1% (p < 0.001), which exceeded those of DM – 78.6% and 91.9%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of DM and CESM were comparable in women with normal breast density (types A and B according to ACR), but in patients with high breast density (types C and D according to ACR), CESM was significantly more sensitive in detecting breast cancer.Conclusion. Thus, diagnostic efficiency of CESM in detecting breast cancer significantly higher in comparison with digital mammography.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.