Suppr超能文献

对比增强光谱乳腺摄影:与 152 例女性的常规乳腺摄影和组织病理学的比较。

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: comparison with conventional mammography and histopathology in 152 women.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Krakow 31-115, Poland.

Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Centre of Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Institute, Krakow 31-115, Poland.

出版信息

Korean J Radiol. 2014 Nov-Dec;15(6):689-96. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2014.15.6.689. Epub 2014 Nov 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the study was to compare conventional mammography (MG) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in preoperative women.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and all participants provided informed consent. The study included 152 consecutive patients with 173 breast lesions diagnosed on MG or CESM. All MG examinations and consults were conducted in one oncology centre. Non-ionic contrast agent, at a total dose of 1.5 mL/kg body weight, was injected intravenous. Subsequently, CESM exams were performed with a mammography device, allowing dual-energy acquisitions. The entire procedure was done within the oncology centre. Images from low and high energy exposures were processed together and the combination provided an "iodine" image which outlined contrast up-take in the breast.

RESULTS

MG detected 157 lesions in 150 patients, including 92 infiltrating cancers, 12 non-infiltrating cancers, and 53 benign lesions. CESM detected 149 lesions in 128 patients, including 101 infiltrating cancers, 13 non-infiltrating cancers, and 35 benign lesions. CESM sensitivity was 100% (vs. 91% for MG), specificity was 41% (vs. 15% for MG), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.86 (vs. 0.67 for MG), and accuracy was 80% (vs. 65% for MG) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Both MG and CESM overestimated lesion sizes compared to histopathology (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

CESM may provide higher sensitivity for breast cancer detection and greater diagnostic accuracy than conventional mammography.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较术前女性的传统乳腺 X 线摄影(MG)和对比增强光谱乳腺 X 线摄影(CESM)。

材料与方法

本研究经当地伦理委员会批准,所有参与者均提供知情同意。该研究纳入了 152 例经 MG 或 CESM 诊断为 173 个乳腺病变的连续患者。所有 MG 检查和咨询均在一家肿瘤中心进行。非离子型造影剂以 1.5ml/kg 体重的总量静脉注射。随后,使用乳腺 X 线摄影设备进行 CESM 检查,允许双能采集。整个过程均在肿瘤中心内进行。低能和高能曝光的图像一起处理,组合提供了一张“碘”图像,勾勒出乳房内的对比摄取。

结果

MG 在 150 例患者中检出 157 个病变,包括 92 个浸润性癌、12 个非浸润性癌和 53 个良性病变。CESM 在 128 例患者中检出 149 个病变,包括 101 个浸润性癌、13 个非浸润性癌和 35 个良性病变。CESM 的敏感性为 100%(MG 为 91%),特异性为 41%(MG 为 15%),受试者工作特征曲线下面积为 0.86(MG 为 0.67),诊断乳腺癌的准确性为 80%(MG 为 65%)。MG 和 CESM 均与组织病理学相比高估了病变大小(p<0.001)。

结论

CESM 可能比传统乳腺 X 线摄影术提供更高的乳腺癌检出率和更大的诊断准确性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c66c/4248623/fe0f919ca9b5/kjr-15-689-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验