Table 3.
Detection rate and size estimation in invasive tumors
| Lesions | US | FFDM | CESM | MRI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 163 | 157 | 161 | 163 | |
| (a) Detection rate versus pathology | ||||
| Lesions detected |
160 98.2% (94.7–99.6%) |
135 86.0% (79.6–91.0%) |
158 98.1% (94.7–99.6%) |
162 99.4% (96.6–100%) |
| Performance CESM | 1.00 | < 0.0001 | – | 0.50 |
| US | FFDM | CESM | MRI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (b) Lesion size versus pathology | ||||
| Negative |
3 1.8% (0.4–5.3%) |
22 14.0% (9.0–20.4%) |
3 1.9% (0.4–5.4%) |
1 0.6% (0.0–3.4%) |
| Performance CESM* | 1.00 | < 0.0001 | - | 0.50 |
| Underestimated |
32 19.6% (13.8–26.6%) |
38 24.2% (17.7–31.7%) |
28 17.4% (11.9–24.1%) |
11 6.7 (3.4–11.8%) |
| Performance CESM* | 0.56 | 0.04 | – | 0.0005 |
| Concordant |
101 62.0% (54.0–69.4) |
71 45.2% (37.3–53.4%) |
104 64.6% (56.7–72.0) |
114 69.9% (62.3–78.9%) |
| Performance CESM* | 0.56 | < 0.0001 | – | 0.28 |
| Overestimated |
27 16.6% (11.2–23.2%) |
26 16.6% (11.1–23.3%) |
26 16.2% (10.8–22.8%) |
37 22.7% (16.5–29.9%) |
| Performance CESM* | 1.00 | 1.00 | – | 0.02 |
FFDM was not evaluable for 6 patients, CESM for 2 patients and MRI for 1 patient
FFDM full field digital mammography, CESM contrast enhanced spectral mammography, US ultrasound, MRI magnetic resonance imaging
The performance of CESM with respect to US, MRI and FFDM is evaluated with McNemar Test p-value