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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elder, Kenneth, Matheson, Julia, Nickson, Carolyn, Box, Georgia, Ellis, Jennifer, Mou, Arlene, Shadbolt, Clair, Park, Allan, Tay, Jia, Rose, Allison, Mann, Gregory Bruce
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