...
首页> 外文期刊>Breast cancer research and treatment. >Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided?
【24h】

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided?

机译:对比增强的乳房X线摄影:乳房X线摄影是否可以提供额外的临床益处,还是可以避免某些放射线照射?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with mammography (MG) and combined CESM + MG in terms of detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers in order to assess the potential to reduce radiation exposure. A total of 118 patients underwent MG and CESM and had final histological results. CESM was performed as a bilateral examination starting 2 min after injection of iodinated contrast medium. Three independent blinded radiologists read the CESM, MG, and CESM + MG images with an interval of at least 4 weeks to avoid case memorization. Sensitivity and size measurement correlation and differences were calculated, average glandular dose (AGD) levels were compared, and breast densities were reported. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests were performed. A total of 107 imaging pairs were available for analysis. Densities were ACR1: 2, ACR2: 45, ACR3: 42, and ACR4: 18. Mean AGD was 1.89 mGy for CESM alone, 1.78 mGy for MG, and 3.67 mGy for the combination. In very dense breasts, AGD of CESM was significantly lower than MG. Sensitivity across readers was 77.9 % for MG alone, 94.7 % for CESM, and 95 % for CESM + MG. Average tumor size measurement error compared to postsurgical pathology was -0.6 mm for MG, +0.6 mm for CESM, and +4.5 mm for CESM + MG (p < 0.001 for CESM + MG vs. both modalities). CESM alone has the same sensitivity and better size assessment as CESM + MG and was significantly better than MG with only 6.2 % increase in AGD. The combination of CESM + MG led to systematic size overestimation. When a CESM examination is planned, additional MG can be avoided, with the possibility of saving up to 61 % of radiation dose, especially in patients with dense breasts.
机译:这项研究的目的是在组织学证实的乳腺癌的检测和大小估计方面,将对比增强光谱乳腺X线摄影术(CESM)与乳腺X线摄影术(MG)以及联合CESM + MG进行比较,以评估减少放射线照射的潜力。共有118例患者接受了MG和CESM治疗,并获得了最终的组织学结果。注射碘化造影剂后2分钟开始,CESM作为双侧检查进行。三位独立的盲位放射科医生以至少4周的间隔阅读CESM,MG和CESM + MG图像,以避免记忆病例。计算敏感性和大小测量的相关性和差异,比较平均腺体剂量(AGD)水平,并报告乳房密度。进行了Fisher精确检验和Wilcoxon检验。共有107个成像对可供分析。密度为ACR1:2,ACR2:45,ACR3:42和ACR4:18。仅CESM的平均AGD为1.89 mGy,MG为1.78 mGy,组合的平均值为3.67 mGy。在非常密集的乳房中,CESM的AGD显着低于MG。单独阅读器的敏感性为77.9%,CESM为94.7%,CESM + MG为95%。与术后病理相比,MG的平均肿瘤尺寸测量误差为-0.6 mm,CESM为+0.6 mm,CESM + MG为+4.5 mm(CESM + MG与两种方式相比,p <0.001)。仅CESM具有与CESM + MG相同的敏感性和更好的尺寸评估,并且显着优于MG,AGD仅增加6.2%。 CESM + MG的组合导致系统大小被高估。计划进行CESM检查时,可以避免额外的MG,特别是在乳房密实的患者中,可以节省多达61%的放射剂量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号