Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

2820 - Diagnostic Value of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast Enhanced MRI for Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

Date

22 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

Presenters

Eun Young Kim

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii58-viii86. 10.1093/annonc/mdy270

Authors

E.Y. Kim, I. Youn, C.H. Park, S.H. Kook

Author affiliations

  • General Surgery, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital Sungkyunkwan University, 110-746 - Seoul/KR
More

Resources

Abstract 2820

Background

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of pre-operative evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) and to evaluate the effect of each modality to the surgical management in women with breast cancer.

Methods

This single-institution prospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all patients. From November 2016 to October 2017, 84 patients, who were diagnosed as invasive carcinoma (69/84) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (15/84) underwent both CEDM and CEMRI, were enrolled. We correlated the imaging findings and surgical management with pathologic results, and compared the diagnostic performance of both modalities in the detection of index and secondary cancers (multifocality and multicentricity), and occult cancer in contralateral breast. We also evaluated whether CEDM or CEMRI made changes in surgical management of the affected breast attributed to imaging-detected findings.

Results

Eighty-four women were included for analysis. CEDM, in comparison to CEMRI, had a significantly higher specificity (66.7% vs 22.2%, P = 0.021), similar sensitivity (94.6% [78/84] vs 93.5% [81/84]), PPV (93.5% vs 86.0%) and a fewer false positive findings (66.7% [10/15] vs 93.3% [14/15]) in detecting index cancer. For detection of secondary cancers on ipsilateral breast and occult cancer in contralateral breast, no significant differences were found between CEDM and CEMRI (all P > 0.05). Regarding changes in surgical management, CEDM made less change (36.9% [31/84] vs 41.7% [35/84]) than CEMRI, owing to less false positive findings (48.4% [15/31] vs 54.3% [19/35]).

Conclusions

CEDM showed comparable diagnostic performance with CEMRI in depicting index, secondary cancers, and occult cancer in contralateral breast. The CEDM, owing to fewer false positive results, made less change in surgical management compared to CEMRI.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.