Article: article from journal or magazin.
Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results
1432-1084 (Electronic)0938-7994 (Linking)
Dromain, ClarisseThibault, FabienneMuller, SergeRimareix, FrancoiseDelaloge, SuzetteTardivon, AnneBalleyguier, CorinneengComparative StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tGermany2010/09/15 06:00Eur Radiol. 2011 Mar;21(3):565-74. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y. Epub 2010 Sep 14.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) as an adjunct to mammography (MX) versus MX alone and versus mammography plus ultrasound (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 120 women with 142 suspect findings on MX and/or US underwent CEDM. A pair of low- and high-energy images was acquired using a modified full-field digital mammography system. Exposures were taken in MLO at 2 min and in CC at 4 min after the injection of 1.5 ml/kg of an iodinated contrast agent. One reader evaluated MX, US and CEDM images during 2 sessions 1 month apart. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were estimated. RESULTS: The results from pathology and follow-up identified 62 benign and 80 malignant lesions. Areas under the ROC curves were significantly superior for MX+CEDM than it was for MX alone and for MX+US using BI-RADS. Sensitivity was higher for MX+CEDM than it was for MX (93% vs. 78%; p < 0.001) with no loss in specificity. The lesion size was closer to the histological size for CEDM. All 23 multifocal lesions were correctly detected by MX+CEDM vs. 16 and 15 lesions by MX and US respectively. CONCLUSION: Initial clinical results show that CEDM has better diagnostic accuracy than mammography alone and mammography+ultrasound.
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Breast Neoplasms/*radiography, Female, Humans, Mammography/*methods, Middle Aged, Radiographic Image Enhancement/*methods, Radiography, Dual-Energy Scanned Projection/*methods, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity
Last modification date