Suppr超能文献

对比增强数字乳腺 X 线摄影和磁共振成像:与病理解剖的可重复性比较。

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: reproducibility compared to pathologic anatomy.

机构信息

Breast Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Lombardia, Italy.

Breast Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca'Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Mangiagalli Center, Milano, Lombardia, Italy.

出版信息

Tumori. 2022 Dec;108(6):563-571. doi: 10.1177/03008916211050124. Epub 2021 Oct 9.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the reproducibility between contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the postsurgical pathologic examination. In addition, the applicability of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of MRI to CEDM was evaluated for mass lesions.

METHODS

A total of 62 patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this study, for a total of 67 lesions. Fifty-nine patients underwent both methods. The reproducibility between MRI vs CEDM and the reference standard (postoperative pathology) was assessed by considering the lesion and breast size as pivotal variables. Reproducibility was evaluated by computing the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Bland-Altman plots were used to depict the observed pattern of agreement as well as to estimate the associated bias. Furthermore, the pattern of agreement between the investigated methods with regard to the breast lesion characterization (i.e. mass/nonmass; shape; margins; internal enhanced characteristics) was assessed by computing the Cohen kappa and its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The reproducibility between MRI and the reference standard and between CEDM and the reference standard showed substantial agreement, with a CCC value of 0.956 (95% CI, 0.931-0.972) and 0.950 (95% CI, 0.920-0.969), respectively. By looking at the Bland-Altman analysis, bias values of 2.344 and 1.875 mm were observed for MRI and CEDM vs reference evaluation, respectively. The agreement between MRI and CEDM is substantial with a CCC value of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.949-0.981). The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias values of -0.469 mm when comparing CEDM vs MRI. Following the Landis and Koch classification criteria, moderate agreement was observed between the two methods in describing BI-RADS descriptors of mass lesions.

CONCLUSION

CEDM is able to measure and describe tumor masses comparably to MRI and can be used for surgical planning.

摘要

目的

比较对比增强数字乳腺摄影(CEDM)与磁共振成像(MRI)与术后病理检查的重现性。此外,评估 BI-RADS 磁共振成像词汇表对 CEDM 肿块病变的适用性。

方法

本研究共纳入 62 例经组织学证实的乳腺癌患者,共 67 个病灶。59 例患者同时接受了两种方法的检查。考虑到病变和乳房大小是关键变量,通过计算一致性相关系数(CCC)来评估 MRI 与 CEDM 与参考标准(术后病理)之间的重现性。Bland-Altman 图用于描绘观察到的一致性模式,并估计相关偏差。此外,通过计算 Cohen kappa 及其 95%置信区间(CI),评估了两种方法在乳房病变特征(即肿块/非肿块;形状;边界;内部增强特征)描述方面的一致性模式。

结果

MRI 与参考标准之间以及 CEDM 与参考标准之间的重现性显示出高度一致性,CCC 值分别为 0.956(95%CI,0.931-0.972)和 0.950(95%CI,0.920-0.969)。通过 Bland-Altman 分析,MRI 和 CEDM 与参考评估的偏差值分别为 2.344 和 1.875mm。MRI 和 CEDM 之间的一致性很高,CCC 值为 0.969(95%CI,0.949-0.981)。Bland-Altman 分析显示 CEDM 与 MRI 比较时的偏差值为-0.469mm。根据 Landis 和 Koch 分类标准,两种方法在描述肿块病变的 BI-RADS 描述符方面存在中等程度的一致性。

结论

CEDM 能够与 MRI 相比测量和描述肿瘤肿块,可用于手术计划。

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