The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use

Abstract Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the dia...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	L. M. F. H. Neeter, H. P. J. Raat, S. D. Meens-Koreman, R. S. A. van Stiphout, S. M. E. C. Timmermans, K. M. Duvivier, M. L. Smidt, J. E. Wildberger, P. J. Nelemans, M. B. I. Lobbes
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/988346129bf94e808aec56ee448d8be9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:988346129bf94e808aec56ee448d8be9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:988346129bf94e808aec56ee448d8be92021-11-21T12:18:19ZThe diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use10.1038/s41598-021-01622-72045-2322https://doaj.org/article/988346129bf94e808aec56ee448d8be92021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01622-7https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor’s system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor’s systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.L. M. F. H. NeeterH. P. J. RaatS. D. Meens-KoremanR. S. A. van StiphoutS. M. E. C. TimmermansK. M. DuvivierM. L. SmidtJ. E. WildbergerP. J. NelemansM. B. I. LobbesNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q L. M. F. H. Neeter H. P. J. Raat S. D. Meens-Koreman R. S. A. van Stiphout S. M. E. C. Timmermans K. M. Duvivier M. L. Smidt J. E. Wildberger P. J. Nelemans M. B. I. Lobbes The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use
description	Abstract Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor’s system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor’s systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.
format	article
author	L. M. F. H. Neeter H. P. J. Raat S. D. Meens-Koreman R. S. A. van Stiphout S. M. E. C. Timmermans K. M. Duvivier M. L. Smidt J. E. Wildberger P. J. Nelemans M. B. I. Lobbes
author_facet	L. M. F. H. Neeter H. P. J. Raat S. D. Meens-Koreman R. S. A. van Stiphout S. M. E. C. Timmermans K. M. Duvivier M. L. Smidt J. E. Wildberger P. J. Nelemans M. B. I. Lobbes
author_sort	L. M. F. H. Neeter
title	The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use
title_short	The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use
title_full	The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use
title_fullStr	The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use
title_full_unstemmed	The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use
title_sort	diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2d mammography in everyday clinical use
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/988346129bf94e808aec56ee448d8be9
work_keys_str_mv	AT lmfhneeter thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT hpjraat thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT sdmeenskoreman thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT rsavanstiphout thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT smectimmermans thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT kmduvivier thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT mlsmidt thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT jewildberger thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT pjnelemans thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT mbilobbes thediagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT lmfhneeter diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT hpjraat diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT sdmeenskoreman diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT rsavanstiphout diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT smectimmermans diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT kmduvivier diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT mlsmidt diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT jewildberger diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT pjnelemans diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse AT mbilobbes diagnosticvalueofcontrastenhanced2dmammographyineverydayclinicaluse
_version_	1718419080973647872

The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use

Ejemplares similares