Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography to compare clinical efficacy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and conventional digital mammography (MMG) with histopathology as gold standard in dense breasts.

Patients and methods

A total of 143 breasts of 72 women who underwent CESM and MMG between 2011 and 2014 at Showa University Hospital were analyzed.

Results

129 (90.2 %) of 143 breasts revealed dense breasts on MMG. 58 (40.6 %) of 143 breasts were diagnosed with breast cancer at histopathology. The remaining 85 breasts were diagnosed with benign findings after image assessments and/or core needle biopsy. CESM revealed 8 false-negative cases among 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 86.2 %) and 5 false-positive cases (specificity 94.1 %). Accuracy was 90.9 %. Conventional MMG was assessed true positive in 31 of 58 breast cancer cases (sensitivity 53.4 %) and false positive in 12 cases (specificity 85.9 %). Accuracy was 72.7 %. Sensitivity (p < 0.001), specificity (p = 0.016) and accuracy (p < 0.001) were significantly higher on CESM compared to MMG. MMG missed malignancy in 27 breasts. Of these, 25 were dense breasts. Of these 25, 20 (80.0 %) breasts were positive on CESM.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that CESM offers superior clinical performance compared to MMG. Use of CESM may decrease false negatives especially for women with dense breasts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening MMG, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225(1):165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1622–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Warner E, Lockwood G, Tritchler D, Boyd NF. The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev. 1992;16:67–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brisson J, Merletti F, Sadowsky NL, Twaddle JA, Morrison AS, Cole P. Mammographic features of the breast and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;115:428–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic density and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:670–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, Bernstein L, Salane M, Parisky YR, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomar- kers Prev. 2003;12:332–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mammography Reporting System. ACR BI-RADS Atlas 5th Edition. American College of Radiology; 2013. p.121–140.

  8. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST 1. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz DM, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: doesmammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, van Roozendaal L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from thebreast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Huang PC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2394–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen Z, Wu AH, Gauderman WJ, Bernstein L, Ma H, Pike MC, et al. Does mammographic density reflect ethnic differences in breast cancer incidence rates? Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(2):140–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, Moy B, Moore RH, Goss PE, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):1147–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellison-Loschmann L, McKenzie F, Highnam R, Cave A, Walker J, Jeffreys M. Age and ethnic differences in volumetric breast density in New Zealand women: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e70217.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Colin C, Schott AM, Valette PJ. Mammographic density is not a worthwhile examination to distinguish high cancer risk women in screening. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2412–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Showa University, 1-5-8 Hatanodai, Shinagawaku, Tokyo, 142-8666, Japan

    Miki Mori, Sadako Akashi-Tanaka, Satoko Suzuki, Murasaki Ikeda Daniels, Chie Watanabe & Seigo Nakamura

  2. Department of Radiology, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan

    Masanori Hirose

Authors
  1. Miki Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sadako Akashi-Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Satoko Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Murasaki Ikeda Daniels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chie Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masanori Hirose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Seigo Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miki Mori.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mori, M., Akashi-Tanaka, S., Suzuki, S. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts. Breast Cancer 24, 104–110 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0681-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0681-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation