Cargando…
Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance
PURPOSE: Mammography (MG) is the standard imaging in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer or DCIS (PHBC), supplemented with ultrasound. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) has higher sensitivity than MG and US. We report the performance of CEM compared with MG ± US. METHODS...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175447/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36966271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06916-0 |
_version_ | 1785040215029579776 |
---|---|
author | Elder, Kenneth Matheson, Julia Nickson, Carolyn Box, Georgia Ellis, Jennifer Mou, Arlene Shadbolt, Clair Park, Allan Tay, Jia Rose, Allison Mann, Gregory Bruce |
author_facet | Elder, Kenneth Matheson, Julia Nickson, Carolyn Box, Georgia Ellis, Jennifer Mou, Arlene Shadbolt, Clair Park, Allan Tay, Jia Rose, Allison Mann, Gregory Bruce |
author_sort | Elder, Kenneth |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Mammography (MG) is the standard imaging in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer or DCIS (PHBC), supplemented with ultrasound. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) has higher sensitivity than MG and US. We report the performance of CEM compared with MG ± US. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients undergoing their first surveillance CEM in an Australian hospital setting between June 2006 and October 2020. Cases where a patient was recalled for assessment were identified, recording radiology, pathology and treatment details. Blinded re-reading of recalled cases was performed to determine the contribution of contrast. Use of surveillance US across the board was assessed for the period. RESULTS: 73/1191 (6.1%) patients were recalled. 35 (48%) were true positives (TP), with 26 invasive cancers and 9 cases of DCIS, while 38 (52%) were false positive (FP) with a positive predictive value (PPV) 47.9%. 32/73 were recalled due to MG findings, while 41/73 were only recalled due to Contrast. 14/73 had ‘minimal signs’ with a lesion identifiable on MG with knowledge of the contrast finding, while 27/73 were visible only with contrast. 41% (17/41) recalled due to contrast were TP. Contrast-only TPs were found with low and high mammographic density (MD). Screening breast US reduced by 55% in the year after CEM was implemented. CONCLUSION: Compared to MG, CEM as a single surveillance modality for those with PHBC has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, identifying additional malignant lesions that are clinically significant. Investigation of interval cancer and subsequent round outcomes is warranted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10175447 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101754472023-05-13 Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance Elder, Kenneth Matheson, Julia Nickson, Carolyn Box, Georgia Ellis, Jennifer Mou, Arlene Shadbolt, Clair Park, Allan Tay, Jia Rose, Allison Mann, Gregory Bruce Breast Cancer Res Treat Preclinical Study PURPOSE: Mammography (MG) is the standard imaging in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer or DCIS (PHBC), supplemented with ultrasound. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) has higher sensitivity than MG and US. We report the performance of CEM compared with MG ± US. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients undergoing their first surveillance CEM in an Australian hospital setting between June 2006 and October 2020. Cases where a patient was recalled for assessment were identified, recording radiology, pathology and treatment details. Blinded re-reading of recalled cases was performed to determine the contribution of contrast. Use of surveillance US across the board was assessed for the period. RESULTS: 73/1191 (6.1%) patients were recalled. 35 (48%) were true positives (TP), with 26 invasive cancers and 9 cases of DCIS, while 38 (52%) were false positive (FP) with a positive predictive value (PPV) 47.9%. 32/73 were recalled due to MG findings, while 41/73 were only recalled due to Contrast. 14/73 had ‘minimal signs’ with a lesion identifiable on MG with knowledge of the contrast finding, while 27/73 were visible only with contrast. 41% (17/41) recalled due to contrast were TP. Contrast-only TPs were found with low and high mammographic density (MD). Screening breast US reduced by 55% in the year after CEM was implemented. CONCLUSION: Compared to MG, CEM as a single surveillance modality for those with PHBC has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, identifying additional malignant lesions that are clinically significant. Investigation of interval cancer and subsequent round outcomes is warranted. Springer US 2023-03-25 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10175447/ /pubmed/36966271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06916-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Preclinical Study Elder, Kenneth Matheson, Julia Nickson, Carolyn Box, Georgia Ellis, Jennifer Mou, Arlene Shadbolt, Clair Park, Allan Tay, Jia Rose, Allison Mann, Gregory Bruce Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
title | Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
title_full | Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
title_fullStr | Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
title_full_unstemmed | Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
title_short | Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
title_sort | contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance |
topic | Preclinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10175447/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36966271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06916-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elderkenneth contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT mathesonjulia contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT nicksoncarolyn contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT boxgeorgia contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT ellisjennifer contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT mouarlene contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT shadboltclair contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT parkallan contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT tayjia contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT roseallison contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance AT manngregorybruce contrastenhancedmammographyinbreastcancersurveillance |