Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma

Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Azzam, Heba [verfasserIn] Kamal, Rasha Mohamed [verfasserIn] Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed [verfasserIn] Youssef, Ayda [verfasserIn] Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	Contrast-enhanced mammogram Tomosynthesis Dense breast Breast ultrasound

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010, 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:51 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; day:05 ; month:08

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1

Katalog-ID:	SPR040559955

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR040559955
003	DE-627
005	20230520003050.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR040559955
035			\|a (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
082	0	4	\|a 610 \|q ASE
100	1		\|a Azzam, Heba \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.
650		4	\|a Contrast-enhanced mammogram \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Tomosynthesis \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Dense breast \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Breast ultrasound \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Kamal, Rasha Mohamed \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Youssef, Ayda \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine \|d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010 \|g 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. \|w (DE-627)641391862 \|w (DE-600)2583928-7 \|x 2090-4762 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:51 \|g year:2020 \|g number:1 \|g day:05 \|g month:08
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 51 \|j 2020 \|e 1 \|b 05 \|c 08

Indexfelder

author_variant	h a ha r m k rm rmk m m h mm mmh a y ay l m b h lmb lmbh
matchkey_str	article:20904762:2020----::oprtvsuyewecnrsehnemmorpyooyteiadratlrsudsopeetrtcnq
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 doi (DE-627)SPR040559955 (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Azzam, Heba verfasserin aut Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results. Contrast-enhanced mammogram (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tomosynthesis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dense breast (dpeaa)DE-He213 Breast ultrasound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kamal, Rasha Mohamed verfasserin aut Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed verfasserin aut Youssef, Ayda verfasserin aut Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam verfasserin aut Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. (DE-627)641391862 (DE-600)2583928-7 2090-4762 nnns volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 51 2020 1 05 08
spelling	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 doi (DE-627)SPR040559955 (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Azzam, Heba verfasserin aut Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results. Contrast-enhanced mammogram (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tomosynthesis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dense breast (dpeaa)DE-He213 Breast ultrasound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kamal, Rasha Mohamed verfasserin aut Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed verfasserin aut Youssef, Ayda verfasserin aut Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam verfasserin aut Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. (DE-627)641391862 (DE-600)2583928-7 2090-4762 nnns volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 51 2020 1 05 08
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 doi (DE-627)SPR040559955 (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Azzam, Heba verfasserin aut Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results. Contrast-enhanced mammogram (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tomosynthesis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dense breast (dpeaa)DE-He213 Breast ultrasound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kamal, Rasha Mohamed verfasserin aut Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed verfasserin aut Youssef, Ayda verfasserin aut Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam verfasserin aut Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. (DE-627)641391862 (DE-600)2583928-7 2090-4762 nnns volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 51 2020 1 05 08
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 doi (DE-627)SPR040559955 (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Azzam, Heba verfasserin aut Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results. Contrast-enhanced mammogram (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tomosynthesis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dense breast (dpeaa)DE-He213 Breast ultrasound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kamal, Rasha Mohamed verfasserin aut Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed verfasserin aut Youssef, Ayda verfasserin aut Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam verfasserin aut Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. (DE-627)641391862 (DE-600)2583928-7 2090-4762 nnns volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 51 2020 1 05 08
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 doi (DE-627)SPR040559955 (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 ASE Azzam, Heba verfasserin aut Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results. Contrast-enhanced mammogram (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tomosynthesis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dense breast (dpeaa)DE-He213 Breast ultrasound (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kamal, Rasha Mohamed verfasserin aut Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed verfasserin aut Youssef, Ayda verfasserin aut Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam verfasserin aut Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. (DE-627)641391862 (DE-600)2583928-7 2090-4762 nnns volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 51 2020 1 05 08
language	English
source	Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08
sourceStr	Enthalten in The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug. volume:51 year:2020 number:1 day:05 month:08
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Contrast-enhanced mammogram Tomosynthesis Dense breast Breast ultrasound
dewey-raw	610
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Azzam, Heba @@aut@@ Kamal, Rasha Mohamed @@aut@@ Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed @@aut@@ Youssef, Ayda @@aut@@ Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-08-05T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	641391862
dewey-sort	3610
id	SPR040559955
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR040559955</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003050.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR040559955</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Azzam, Heba</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Contrast-enhanced mammogram</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tomosynthesis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dense breast</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Breast ultrasound</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kamal, Rasha Mohamed</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Youssef, Ayda</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)641391862</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2583928-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2090-4762</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:51</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">51</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Azzam, Heba
spellingShingle	Azzam, Heba ddc 610 misc Contrast-enhanced mammogram misc Tomosynthesis misc Dense breast misc Breast ultrasound Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
authorStr	Azzam, Heba
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)641391862
format	electronic Article
dewey-ones	610 - Medicine & health
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	2090-4762
topic_title	610 ASE Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma Contrast-enhanced mammogram (dpeaa)DE-He213 Tomosynthesis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Dense breast (dpeaa)DE-He213 Breast ultrasound (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	ddc 610 misc Contrast-enhanced mammogram misc Tomosynthesis misc Dense breast misc Breast ultrasound
topic_unstemmed	ddc 610 misc Contrast-enhanced mammogram misc Tomosynthesis misc Dense breast misc Breast ultrasound
topic_browse	ddc 610 misc Contrast-enhanced mammogram misc Tomosynthesis misc Dense breast misc Breast ultrasound
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
hierarchy_parent_id	641391862
dewey-tens	610 - Medicine & health
hierarchy_top_title	The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)641391862 (DE-600)2583928-7
title	Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR040559955 (SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e
title_full	Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
author_sort	Azzam, Heba
journal	The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
journalStr	The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
dewey-hundreds	600 - Technology
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Azzam, Heba Kamal, Rasha Mohamed Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed Youssef, Ayda Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam
container_volume	51
class	610 ASE
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Azzam, Heba
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1
dewey-full	610
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
title_auth	Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
abstract	Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.
abstractGer	Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.
abstract_unstemmed	Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1
remote_bool	true
author2	Kamal, Rasha Mohamed Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed Youssef, Ayda Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam
author2Str	Kamal, Rasha Mohamed Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed Youssef, Ayda Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam
ppnlink	641391862
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1
up_date	2024-07-03T16:47:32.052Z
_version_	1803577198695677952
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR040559955</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230520003050.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR040559955</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s43055-020-00268-1-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">ASE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Azzam, Heba</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma. Results The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%. Conclusion Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Contrast-enhanced mammogram</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tomosynthesis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dense breast</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Breast ultrasound</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kamal, Rasha Mohamed</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hanafy, Mennatallah Mohamed</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Youssef, Ayda</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hashem, Lamia Mohamed Bassam</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">51(2020), 1 vom: 05. Aug.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)641391862</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2583928-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2090-4762</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:51</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:05</subfield><subfield code="g">month:08</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00268-1</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">51</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">05</subfield><subfield code="c">08</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.399705

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?