Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size
- 2.2k Downloads
To compare mammography (MG), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers using postoperative histology as the gold standard.
After ethical approval, 80 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent MG, CESM, and MRI examinations. CESM was reviewed by an independent experienced radiologist, and the maximum dimension of suspicious lesions was measured. For MG and MRI, routine clinical reports of breast specialists, with judgment based on the BI-RADS lexicon, were used. Results of each imaging technique were correlated to define the index cancer. Fifty-nine cases could be compared to postoperative histology for size estimation.
Breast cancer was visible in 66/80 MG, 80/80 CESM, and 77/79 MRI examinations. Average lesion largest dimension was 27.31 mm (SD 22.18) in MG, 31.62 mm (SD 24.41) in CESM, and 27.72 mm (SD 21.51) in MRI versus 32.51 mm (SD 29.03) in postoperative histology. No significant difference was found between lesion size measurement on MRI and CESM compared with histopathology.
Our initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI in breast cancer detection than MG and a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment.
• Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is slowly being introduced into clinical practice.
• Access to breast MRI is limited by availability and lack of reimbursement.
• Initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI than conventional mammography.
• CESM showed a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment.
• Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography offers promise, seemingly providing information comparable to MRI.
KeywordsBreast cancer Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography Contrast media MRI
The study was supported by a research grant from GE Healthcare. The investigators had exclusive control of all data, manuscript drafting, and submission of this study.
We are grateful to Nikola Bangemann, Christiane Richter-Ehrenstein, MD, and Angela Reles, MD, for their contribution in the patient recruitment and inclusion.
We are thankful to Prof. Marc Dewey for discussions about this paper and to Bettina Herwig for editorial support.