Cargando…
Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35648209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3 |
_version_ | 1784832024411897856 |
---|---|
author | Cozzi, Andrea Schiaffino, Simone Fanizza, Marianna Magni, Veronica Menicagli, Laura Monaco, Cristian Giuseppe Benedek, Adrienn Spinelli, Diana Di Leo, Giovanni Di Giulio, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco |
author_facet | Cozzi, Andrea Schiaffino, Simone Fanizza, Marianna Magni, Veronica Menicagli, Laura Monaco, Cristian Giuseppe Benedek, Adrienn Spinelli, Diana Di Leo, Giovanni Di Giulio, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco |
author_sort | Cozzi, Andrea |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar’s test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5–48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7–64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2–97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1–78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9668944 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96689442022-11-18 Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study Cozzi, Andrea Schiaffino, Simone Fanizza, Marianna Magni, Veronica Menicagli, Laura Monaco, Cristian Giuseppe Benedek, Adrienn Spinelli, Diana Di Leo, Giovanni Di Giulio, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco Eur Radiol Breast OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar’s test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5–48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7–64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2–97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1–78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-06-01 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9668944/ /pubmed/35648209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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 | Breast Cozzi, Andrea Schiaffino, Simone Fanizza, Marianna Magni, Veronica Menicagli, Laura Monaco, Cristian Giuseppe Benedek, Adrienn Spinelli, Diana Di Leo, Giovanni Di Giulio, Giuseppe Sardanelli, Francesco Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
title | Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
title_full | Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
title_fullStr | Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
title_full_unstemmed | Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
title_short | Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
title_sort | contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study |
topic | Breast |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9668944/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35648209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cozziandrea contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT schiaffinosimone contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT fanizzamarianna contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT magniveronica contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT menicaglilaura contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT monacocristiangiuseppe contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT benedekadrienn contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT spinellidiana contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT dileogiovanni contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT digiuliogiuseppe contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy AT sardanellifrancesco contrastenhancedmammographyfortheassessmentofscreeningrecallsatwocentrestudy |