Scholarlink

Background <p>Breast calcifications can be an indicator of early-stage breast cancer. While Digital Mammography (DM) remains the gold standard for detecting breast microcalcifications, its ability to differentiate between benign and malignant types based solely on morphology and distribution is limited. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) incorporates pathological contrast-enhancement, leading to a more confident diagnosis, and offering a faster and more cost-effective tool than breast magnetic resonance imaging. CEM allows for a single scan assessing both microcalcification morphology using low energy images and lesion vascularity using high energy subtracted images.</p> Purpose <p>This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CEM and DM in evaluating suspicious breast calcifications, with a focus on characterizing breast masses (benign vs. malignant), delineating tumor extent, and assessing the clinical impact of these imaging modalities on surgical decision-making.</p> Results <p>Out of the 54 identified breast&#xa0;lesions, 19/54, (35%) were benign and 35/54, (65%) were malignant. Calculated&#xa0;sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and total accuracy of DM were 91.4%, 70.8%, 62.7%,&#xa0;93.9%, and 78% respectively as compared to 85.7%,&#xa0;90.7%, 83.3%,&#xa0;92.2%,&#xa0;and&#xa0;89% for CEM.</p> <p>Regarding size estimation, Results showed that size of tumor by CEM was more correlated to that by pathology, correlation coefficient (r = 0.86), than DM and pathology,(r = 0.588). Mean difference in diameter (compared to pathology) for CEM was 1.28&#xa0;mm, and 2.8&#xa0;mm for DM, with no effects on surgical decision-making.</p> <p>Cronbach’s Alpha as a measure of reliability was 0.740 between size measurement by DM and pathology, indicating acceptable reliability. However, it was 0.92 between CEM and pathology, indicating excellent reliability.</p> Conclusions <p>CEM exhibits higher specificity than DM in assessing suspicious breast microcalcifications. CEM provided tumor size measurements that correlated more with pathological findings compared to DM. While these measurement discrepancies were minor and did not affect surgical planning, CEM proved impactful in when multicentricity was identified by CEM but overlooked in initial DM evaluations. This was evident in patients with dense breasts or instances of satisfaction of search error, where subtle lesions indicative of multicentricity were initially missed, highlighting CEM’s potential to enhance surgical decision-making in such scenarios.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative analysis of digital mammography and contrast-enhanced mammography in diagnosing suspicious breast calcifications: implications for surgical decision-making

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月2日

查看全文
  • Marwa Mohamed Taher Mohamed ElSayad,
  • Maha Hussein Mohamed Helal,
  • Omar Hussein Omar,
  • Ahmed Gamal Eldeen Othman,
  • Marwa Elsayed Abdelrahman Ibrahim

摘要

Background

Breast calcifications can be an indicator of early-stage breast cancer. While Digital Mammography (DM) remains the gold standard for detecting breast microcalcifications, its ability to differentiate between benign and malignant types based solely on morphology and distribution is limited. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) incorporates pathological contrast-enhancement, leading to a more confident diagnosis, and offering a faster and more cost-effective tool than breast magnetic resonance imaging. CEM allows for a single scan assessing both microcalcification morphology using low energy images and lesion vascularity using high energy subtracted images.

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CEM and DM in evaluating suspicious breast calcifications, with a focus on characterizing breast masses (benign vs. malignant), delineating tumor extent, and assessing the clinical impact of these imaging modalities on surgical decision-making.

Results

Out of the 54 identified breast lesions, 19/54, (35%) were benign and 35/54, (65%) were malignant. Calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and total accuracy of DM were 91.4%, 70.8%, 62.7%, 93.9%, and 78% respectively as compared to 85.7%, 90.7%, 83.3%, 92.2%, and 89% for CEM.

Regarding size estimation, Results showed that size of tumor by CEM was more correlated to that by pathology, correlation coefficient (r = 0.86), than DM and pathology,(r = 0.588). Mean difference in diameter (compared to pathology) for CEM was 1.28 mm, and 2.8 mm for DM, with no effects on surgical decision-making.

Cronbach’s Alpha as a measure of reliability was 0.740 between size measurement by DM and pathology, indicating acceptable reliability. However, it was 0.92 between CEM and pathology, indicating excellent reliability.

Conclusions

CEM exhibits higher specificity than DM in assessing suspicious breast microcalcifications. CEM provided tumor size measurements that correlated more with pathological findings compared to DM. While these measurement discrepancies were minor and did not affect surgical planning, CEM proved impactful in when multicentricity was identified by CEM but overlooked in initial DM evaluations. This was evident in patients with dense breasts or instances of satisfaction of search error, where subtle lesions indicative of multicentricity were initially missed, highlighting CEM’s potential to enhance surgical decision-making in such scenarios.