Cargando…

Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?

PURPOSE: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however thei...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Siminiak, Natalia, Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Anna, Godlewska, Antonina, Wojtyś, Piotr, Olejnik, Magdalena, Michalak, Joanna, Nowaczyk, Piotr, Gajdzis, Paweł, Godlewski, Dariusz, Ruchała, Marek, Czepczyński, Rafał
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9730826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36505843
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.941312
_version_ 1784845768317730816
author Siminiak, Natalia
Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Anna
Godlewska, Antonina
Wojtyś, Piotr
Olejnik, Magdalena
Michalak, Joanna
Nowaczyk, Piotr
Gajdzis, Paweł
Godlewski, Dariusz
Ruchała, Marek
Czepczyński, Rafał
author_facet Siminiak, Natalia
Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Anna
Godlewska, Antonina
Wojtyś, Piotr
Olejnik, Magdalena
Michalak, Joanna
Nowaczyk, Piotr
Gajdzis, Paweł
Godlewski, Dariusz
Ruchała, Marek
Czepczyński, Rafał
author_sort Siminiak, Natalia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program. METHODS: The study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified. RESULTS: CEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM’s AUC was 0.97 and DBT’s 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9730826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97308262022-12-09 Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening? Siminiak, Natalia Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Anna Godlewska, Antonina Wojtyś, Piotr Olejnik, Magdalena Michalak, Joanna Nowaczyk, Piotr Gajdzis, Paweł Godlewski, Dariusz Ruchała, Marek Czepczyński, Rafał Front Oncol Oncology PURPOSE: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program. METHODS: The study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified. RESULTS: CEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM’s AUC was 0.97 and DBT’s 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9730826/ /pubmed/36505843 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.941312 Text en Copyright © 2022 Siminiak, Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Godlewska, Wojtyś, Olejnik, Michalak, Nowaczyk, Gajdzis, Godlewski, Ruchała and Czepczyński https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Siminiak, Natalia
Pasiuk-Czepczyńska, Anna
Godlewska, Antonina
Wojtyś, Piotr
Olejnik, Magdalena
Michalak, Joanna
Nowaczyk, Piotr
Gajdzis, Paweł
Godlewski, Dariusz
Ruchała, Marek
Czepczyński, Rafał
Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
title Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
title_full Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
title_fullStr Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
title_full_unstemmed Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
title_short Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
title_sort are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9730826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36505843
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.941312
work_keys_str_mv AT siminiaknatalia arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT pasiukczepczynskaanna arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT godlewskaantonina arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT wojtyspiotr arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT olejnikmagdalena arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT michalakjoanna arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT nowaczykpiotr arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT gajdzispaweł arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT godlewskidariusz arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT ruchałamarek arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening
AT czepczynskirafał arecontrastenhancedmammographyanddigitalbreasttomosynthesisequallyeffectiveindiagnosingpatientsrecalledfrombreastcancerscreening