Suppr超能文献

自动乳腺超声、全视野数字乳腺摄影和对比增强乳腺摄影在不同乳腺组织构成中的诊断性能比较分析

Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of Automatic Breast Ultrasound, Full-Field Digital Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Relation to Breast Composition.

作者信息

Pawlak Marta Ewa, Rudnicki Wojciech, Borkowska Anna, Skubisz Karolina, Rydzyk Rafał, Łuczyńska Elżbieta

机构信息

Diagnostic Imaging Department, University Hospital in Cracow, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

Department of Electroradiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 30-688 Cracow, Poland.

出版信息

Biomedicines. 2023 Dec 6;11(12):3226. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11123226.

Abstract

This single center study includes a comparative analysis of the diagnostic performance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and automatic breast ultrasound (ABUS) in the group of patients with breast American College of Radiology (ACR) categories C and D as well as A and B with FFDM. The study involved 297 patients who underwent ABUS and FFDM. Breast types C and D were determined in 40% of patients with FFDM and low- energy CEM. CEM was performed on 76 patients. Focal lesions were found in 131 patients, of which 115 were histopathologically verified. The number of lesions detected in patients with multiple lesions were 40 from 48 with ABUS, 13 with FFDM and 21 with CEM. Compliance in determining the number of foci was 82% for FFDM and 91% for both CEM and ABUS. In breast types C and D, 72% of all lesions were found with ABUS, 56% with CEM and 29% with FFDM ( = 0.008, = 0.000); all invasive cancers were diagnosed with ABUS, 83% with CEM and 59% with FFDM ( = 0.000, = 0.023); 100% DCIS were diagnosed with ABUS, 93% with CEM and 59% with FFDM. The size of lesions from histopathology in breast ACR categories A and B was 14-26 mm, while in breast categories C and D was 11-37 mm. In breast categories C and D, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 78.05, 85.37, 92.68; specificity: 40, 13.33, 8.33; PPV (positive predictive value): 78.05, 72.92, 77.55; NPV (negative predictive value): 40, 25, 25, accuracy: 67.86, 66.07, 73.58. In breast categories A and B, sensitivity of ABUS, FFDM and CEM was, respectively, 81.25, 93.75, 93.48; specificity: 18.18, 18.18, 16.67; PPV: 81.25, 83.33, 89.58; NPV: 18.18, 40, 25; accuracy: 69.49, 79.66, 84.62. The sensitivity of the combination of FFDM and ABUS was 100 for all types of breast categories; the accuracy was 75 in breast types C and D and 81.36 in breast types A and B. The study confirms the predominance of C and D breast anatomy types and the low diagnostic performance of FFDM within that group and indicates ABUS and CEM as potential additive methods in breast cancer diagnostics.

摘要

这项单中心研究对全视野数字乳腺摄影(FFDM)、对比增强乳腺摄影(CEM)和自动乳腺超声(ABUS)在乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)C类和D类患者以及FFDM检查为A类和B类的患者中的诊断性能进行了对比分析。该研究纳入了297例行ABUS和FFDM检查的患者。40%接受FFDM和低能量CEM检查的患者被判定为乳腺C类和D类。76例患者接受了CEM检查。131例患者发现有局灶性病变,其中115例经组织病理学证实。在有多发性病变的患者中,ABUS检测出40个病变(共48个),FFDM检测出13个,CEM检测出21个。FFDM确定病灶数量的符合率为82%,CEM和ABUS均为91%。在C类和D类乳腺中,所有病变的72%由ABUS检测出,56%由CEM检测出,29%由FFDM检测出(P = 0.008,P = 0.000);所有浸润性癌中,ABUS诊断出100%,CEM诊断出83%,FFDM诊断出59%(P = 0.000,P = 0.023);导管原位癌(DCIS)中,ABUS诊断出100%,CEM诊断出93%,FFDM诊断出59%。A类和B类乳腺组织病理学检查中病变大小为14 - 26毫米,而C类和D类乳腺中病变大小为11 - 37毫米。在C类和D类乳腺中,ABUS、FFDM和CEM的敏感性分别为78.05、85.37、92.68;特异性分别为40、13.33、8.33;阳性预测值(PPV)分别为78.05、72.92、77.55;阴性预测值(NPV)分别为40、25、25;准确率分别为67.86、66.07、73.58。在A类和B类乳腺中,ABUS、FFDM和CEM的敏感性分别为81.25、93.75、93.48;特异性分别为18.18、18.18、16.67;PPV分别为81.25、83.33、89.58;NPV分别为18.18、40、25;准确率分别为69.49、79.66、84.62。FFDM与ABUS联合检查对所有类型乳腺的敏感性均为100%;在C类和D类乳腺中准确率为75%,在A类和B类乳腺中准确率为81.36%。该研究证实了C类和D类乳腺解剖类型占优势以及FFDM在该组中的低诊断性能,并表明ABUS和CEM作为乳腺癌诊断中的潜在辅助方法。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f7e9/10741119/88a6b0bf1c54/biomedicines-11-03226-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验