Table 4.
Detection rate in intraductal tumors
| Lesions | Detection rate | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | FFDM | CESM | MRI | ||||||
| N | Rate (95% CI) | N | Rate (95% CI) | N | Rate (95% CI) | N | Rate (95% CI) | ||
| ALL | 15 | 8 | 53% (27–79%) | 12 | 80% (52–96%) | 7 | 47% (21–73%) | 12 | 80% (52–96%) |
|
DIN1c/ (DCISG1) |
4 | 2 | 50% (7–93%) | 3 | 75% (19–79%) | 1 | 25% (1–81%) | 3 | 75% (19–79%) |
|
DIN2/ (DCISG2) |
7 | 5 | 71% (29–96%) | 6 | 86% (42–100%) | 3 | 43% (10–82%) | 6 | 86% (42–100%) |
|
DIN3/ (DCISG3) |
4 | 1 | 25% (1–81%) | 3 | 75% (19–79%) | 3 | 75% (19–79%) | 3 | 75% (19–79%) |
| Performance wrt CESMa | 1.00 | 0.06 | – | 0.06 | |||||
awrt with respect to
FFDM full field digital mammography, CESM contrast enhanced spectral mammography, US ultrasound, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, LIN lobular intraepithelial neoplasia, DIN ductal intraepithelial neoplasia
The performance of CESM with respect to US, MRI and FFDM is evaluated with McNemar Test p-value