Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Street 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Diagnostic Breast Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Eur Radiol. 2019 Jun;29(6):3141-3148. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5854-8. Epub 2018 Nov 28.
To evaluate whether post-contrast cone-beam breast CT (CBBCT) alone is comparable to the current standard of combined pre- and post-contrast CBBCT regarding diagnostic accuracy and superior regarding radiation exposure.
This study included 49 women (61 breasts) with median age 57.9 years and BI-RADS 4/5 lesions diagnosed on mammography/ultrasound in density type c/d breasts. Two radiologists rated post-contrast CBBCT and pre- and post-contrast CBBCT with subtraction images on the BI-RADS scale separately for calculation of inter- and intra-observer agreement and in consensus for diagnostic accuracy assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were compared via McNemar test and DeLong method, respectively. Subtraction imaging misregistration were measured from 1 (no artifacts) to 4 (artifacts with width > 4 mm).
A total of 100 lesion (51 malignant; 6 high risk; 43 benign) were included. AUC, sensitivity, and specificity showed no significant differences comparing post-contrast CBBCT alone versus pre- and post-contrast CBBCT (AUC 0.84 vs. 0.83, p = 0.643; sensitivity 0.89 vs. 0.85, p = 0.158; specificity 0.73 vs. 0.76, p = 0.655). Inter- and intra-observer agreement was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient ICC = 0.76, ICC = 0.83, respectively). Radiation dose was significantly lower for post-contrast CBBCT alone versus pre- and post-contrast CBBCT (median average glandular radiation dose 5.9 mGy vs. 11.7 mGy, p < 0.001). High-degree misregistrations were evident in the majority of subtraction images (level 1/2/3/4 16.9%/27.1%/16.9%/39%), in particular for bilateral exams (3.2%/29.2%/8.3%/58.3%).
Diagnostic accuracy of post-contrast CBBCT alone is comparable to pre- and post-contrast CBBCT in type c/d breasts, while yielding a significant twofold radiation dose reduction.
• The diagnostic accuracy of post-contrast CBBCT alone is comparable to dual acquisition of pre- and post-contrast CBBCT. • Acquisition of the post-contrast CBBCT scan alone reduces radiation exposure compared to pre- and post-contrast CBBCT, thus countering one of the main limitations of CBBCT. • High-degree misregistration artifacts limit the interpretation of subtraction images from pre- and post-contrast CBBCT studies.
评估单独使用对比增强后的锥形束乳腺 CT(CBBCT)与目前标准的对比增强前后 CBBCT 相比,在诊断准确性方面是否相当,在放射剂量方面是否更优。
本研究纳入了 49 名(61 只乳房)中位年龄 57.9 岁的女性,她们的乳房在乳腺 X 线摄影/超声检查中被诊断为 BI-RADS 4/5 类病变,乳房类型为 c/d 型。两位放射科医生分别使用 BI-RADS 量表对增强后的 CBBCT 和增强前后的 CBBCT 减去减影图像进行评分,以评估其诊断准确性。通过 McNemar 检验和 DeLong 方法比较敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积(AUC)。从 1(无伪影)到 4(伪影宽度>4mm)对减影图像的配准错误进行了测量。
共纳入 100 个病灶(51 个恶性病灶;6 个高风险病灶;43 个良性病灶)。单独使用增强后的 CBBCT 与增强前后的 CBBCT 相比,AUC、敏感性和特异性无显著差异(AUC 0.84 比 0.83,p=0.643;敏感性 0.89 比 0.85,p=0.158;特异性 0.73 比 0.76,p=0.655)。观察者间和观察者内的一致性均为极好(组内相关系数 ICC=0.76,ICC=0.83)。单独使用增强后的 CBBCT 的放射剂量明显低于增强前后的 CBBCT(中位数平均腺体放射剂量 5.9mGy 比 11.7mGy,p<0.001)。减影图像中存在大量高度配准错误(1/2/3/4 级分别为 16.9%/27.1%/16.9%/39%),尤其是双侧检查(3.2%/29.2%/8.3%/58.3%)。
在 c/d 型乳房中,单独使用增强后的 CBBCT 的诊断准确性与增强前后的 CBBCT 相当,同时可显著降低两倍的放射剂量。
单独使用增强后的 CBBCT 的诊断准确性与双次采集的增强前后 CBBCT 相当。
与增强前后的 CBBCT 相比,单独采集增强后的 CBBCT 扫描可降低放射剂量,从而克服了 CBBCT 的主要限制之一。
高度配准伪影限制了对增强前后的 CBBCT 研究的减影图像的解释。