prikaz prve stranice dokumenta Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
  Download
PDF 2.76 MB
Scientific paper - Original scientific paper
Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
Diagnostics, 14 (2024), 14; 1575. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141575
Bartolović, Nina; Car Peterko, Ana; Avirović, Manuela; Šegota Ritoša, Doris; Grgurević Dujmić, Emina; Valković Zujić, Petra

Institutional repository: Repository of the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Medicine

Cite this document

Bartolović, N., Car Peterko, A., Avirović, M., Šegota Ritoša, D., Grgurević Dujmić, E. & Valković Zujić, P. (2024). Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Diagnostics, 14. (14). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14141575

Bartolović, Nina, et al. "Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis." Diagnostics, vol. 14, no. 14, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141575

Bartolović, Nina, Ana Car Peterko, Manuela Avirović, Doris Šegota Ritoša, Emina Grgurević Dujmić and Petra Valković Zujić. "Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis." Diagnostics 14, no. 14 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141575

Bartolović, N., et al. (2024) 'Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis', Diagnostics, 14(14). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14141575

Bartolović N, Car Peterko A, Avirović M, Šegota Ritoša D, Grgurević Dujmić E, Valković Zujić P. Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Diagnostics [Internet]. 2024 July 21 [cited 2024 November 08];14(14). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14141575

N. Bartolović, A. Car Peterko, M. Avirović, D. Šegota Ritoša, E. Grgurević Dujmić and P. Valković Zujić, "Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis", Diagnostics, vol. 14, no. 14, July 2024. [Online]. Available at: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:184:308099. [Accessed: 08 November 2024]

Metadata
Title (english)Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
AuthorNina Bartolović
AuthorAna Car Peterko
AuthorManuela Avirović
AuthorDoris Šegota Ritoša
AuthorEmina Grgurević Dujmić
AuthorPetra Valković Zujić
Author's institutionUniversity of Rijeka
Faculty of Medicine
(Department of Radiology)
Scientific / art field,
discipline and subdiscipline		BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE
Clinical Medical Sciences
Radiology
Abstract (english)
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new imaging technique that allows morphologic, anatomic and functional imaging of the breast. The aim of our study was to validate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to mammography (MMG) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in daily clinical practice. This retrospective study included 316 consecutive patients who underwent MMG, DBT and CEM at the Centre for Prevention and Diagnosis of Chronic Diseases of Primorsko-goranska County. Two breast radiologists independently analyzed the image data, without available anamnestic information and without the possibility of comparison with previous images, to determine the presence of suspicious lesions and their morphological features according to the established criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The diagnostic value of MMG, DBT and CEM was assessed by ROC analysis. The interobserver agreement was excellent. CEM showed higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity compared to MMG and DBT, the reporting time for CEM was significantly shorter, and CEM findings resulted in a significantly lower proportion of equivocal findings (BI-RADS 0), suggesting fewer additional procedures. In conclusion, CEM achieves high diagnostic accuracy while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility and applicability in complex clinical settings.
Keywords (english)
Languageenglish
Publication typeScientific paper - Original scientific paper
Publication statusPublished
Peer reviewPeer review - international
Publication versionPublished version
Journal titleDiagnostics
Numberingvol. 14, no. 14, 1575
e-ISSN2075-4418
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141575
URN:NBNurn:nbn:hr:184:308099
Publication2024-07-21
Document URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/14/1575
Type of resourceText
Access conditionsOpen access
Terms of useLicence Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) icon
Created on2024-08-08 07:07:54