Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11499/56836
Title: Dynamic contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer and detection of tumor size
Authors: Tekinhatun, M.
Sabir, N.
Erdem, E.
Yilmaz, S.
Ufuk, F.
Keywords: Breast cancer
contrast-enhanced spectral mammography
dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging
gadoterate meglumine
iohexol
adult
area under the curve
Article
atypical ductal hyperplasia
breast cancer
breast imaging reporting and data system
breast magnetic resonance imaging
breast papilloma
contrast enhanced mammography
contrast enhancement
controlled study
cystic fibrosis
diagnostic test accuracy study
female
fibroadenoma
granulomatous inflammation
histopathology
human
human tissue
image analysis
major clinical study
mastitis
middle aged
predictive value
prospective study
receiver operating characteristic
sensitivity and specificity
tumor volume
Publisher: Turkiye Klinikleri
Abstract: Background/aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic breast MRI techniques for diagnosing breast lesions, assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEM’s using histopathological findings, and compare lesion size measurements obtained from both methods with pathological size. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 120 lesions, of which 70 were malignant, in 104 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within a week. Two radiologists independently evaluated the MR and CEM images in separate sessions, using the BI-RADS classification system. Additionally, the maximum sizes of lesion were measured. Diagnostic accuracy parameters and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for the two modalities. The correlation between the maximum diameter of breast lesions observed in MRI, CEM, and pathology was analyzed. Results: The overall diagnostic values for MRI were as follows: sensitivity 97.1%, specificity 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) 77.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) 93.8%, and accuracy 81.7%. Correspondingly, for CEM, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.14%, 81.67%, 60%, 77.27%, and 93.75%, respectively. The ROC analysis of CEM revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.907 for observer 1 and 0.857 for observer 2, whereas MRI exhibited an AUC of 0.910 for observer 1 and 0.914 for observer 2. Notably, CEM showed the highest correlation with pathological lesion size (r = 0.660 for observer 1 and r = 0.693 for observer 2, p < 0.001 for both). Conclusion: CEM can be used with high sensitivity and similar diagnostic performance comparable to MRI for diagnosing breast cancer. CEM proves to be a successful diagnostic method for precisely determining tumor size. © TÜBİTAK.
URI: https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.5786
https://hdl.handle.net/11499/56836
ISSN: 13000144
Appears in Collections:Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / Scopus Indexed Publications Collection
Tıp Fakültesi Koleksiyonu
TR Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / TR Dizin Indexed Publications Collection
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection

Show full item record



CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

40
checked on Aug 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check




Altmetric


Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.