Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
Processing Request
The performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in local preoperative staging of invasive lobular breast cancer.
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
Processing Request
- Author(s): Lobbes, Marc B.I.1,2,3 (AUTHOR) ; Neeter, Lidewij M.F.H.1,3 (AUTHOR) ; Raat, Frank4 (AUTHOR) ; Turk, Kim2 (AUTHOR) ; Wildberger, Joachim E.1,3 (AUTHOR) ; van Nijnatten, Thiemo J.A.1,3 (AUTHOR) ; Nelemans, Patricia J.5 (AUTHOR)
- Source:
European Journal of Radiology. Jul2023, Vol. 164, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
- Subject Terms:
- Additional Information
- Abstract:
• CEM and MRI both overestimate tumour size by 2 mm in patients diagnosed with ILC. • MRI's higher sensitivity is accompanied by lower specificity. • There was no significant difference in diagnostic odds ratios between the modalities. • CEM is an alternative to MRI in local preoperative staging of ILC. Breast MRI is considered the best modality for preoperative staging of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). However, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) shows comparable diagnostic performance to MRI, but evidence of CEM's accuracy in women diagnosed with ILC is scant. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate CEM and MRI accuracy in preoperative staging of ILC. ILC cases diagnosed between 2013 and 2021 were collected. For both modalities, tumour diameter was extracted from the reports. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess discrepancies between size measurements according to imaging and histopathological findings. CEM and MRI's ability to detect multifocal/contralateral cancer was expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs). Pairwise comparison of women undergoing both CEM and MRI was not performed. 305 ILC-cases fulfilled preset inclusion criteria. Mean age was 63.7 years. Preoperative staging was performed using MRI or CEM in 266 (87.2%) and 77 (25.2%) cases, respectively. MRI and CEM overestimated tumour size by 1.5 and 2.1 mm, respectively. Sensitivity to detect multifocal disease was higher for MRI than for CEM (86% versus 78%), but specificity was lower for MRI (79% versus 92%). For detection of contralateral breast cancer, sensitivity for MRI was 96% versus 88% for CEM, and specificity was 92% and 99%, respectively. For both indications, DOR was higher for CEM, but differences were non-significant (p = 0.56 and p = 0.78). CEM and MRI overestimate ILC size with comparable systematic and random errors. MRI's higher sensitivity for detection of multifocal/contralateral cancers is accompanied by lower specificity, but discriminative ability for both modalities was non-significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Abstract:
Copyright of European Journal of Radiology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
No Comments.