Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To evaluate the diagnostic performance of positron emission mammography (PEM) as an adjunct to breast MRI or contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for characterizing non-mass enhancement (NME).</p> Materials and methods <p>This retrospective two-arm study included 108 women with NME. Patients were categorized into Arm 1 (MRI + PEM, <i>n</i> = 54) or Arm 2 (CESM + PEM, <i>n</i> = 54). Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all imaging studies blinded to histopathology. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated using histopathology as the reference standard.</p> Results <p>In Arm 1, PEM demonstrated 100% sensitivity (34/34) and higher specificity (100%, 20/20) compared with MRI (30.0%, 6/20; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). In Arm 2, PEM showed 100% sensitivity (28/28) and higher specificity (92.3%, 24/26) compared with CESM (61.5%, 16/26; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.01). Inter-observer agreement was higher for PEM (κ = 0.674) than for MRI (κ = 0.351) and CESM (κ = 0.210). In a combined analysis of 38 indeterminate cases, PEM correctly reclassified 29 of 30 benign lesions.</p> Conclusion <p>In this cohort, PEM demonstrated high diagnostic performance and improved specificity when used as an adjunct to MRI or CESM. These findings suggest that PEM may serve as a valuable problem-solving tool in selected indeterminate cases. However, results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective design and limited sample size.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

PEM as an adjunct to MRI or CESM for characterizing non-mass enhancement: a retrospective two-arm diagnostic study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月13日

查看全文
  • Nourhan Emad El-Din Ali Mohamed,
  • Dalia Elmesidy,
  • Rasha Wessam Abdel Rahman,
  • Abdel Rahman Omar Ahmed,
  • Maher Hassan Ibraheem,
  • Ghada Mohamed Abdel Salam,
  • Aalaa Sobhi

摘要

Objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of positron emission mammography (PEM) as an adjunct to breast MRI or contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for characterizing non-mass enhancement (NME).

Materials and methods

This retrospective two-arm study included 108 women with NME. Patients were categorized into Arm 1 (MRI + PEM, n = 54) or Arm 2 (CESM + PEM, n = 54). Two experienced radiologists independently reviewed all imaging studies blinded to histopathology. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated using histopathology as the reference standard.

Results

In Arm 1, PEM demonstrated 100% sensitivity (34/34) and higher specificity (100%, 20/20) compared with MRI (30.0%, 6/20; P < 0.001). In Arm 2, PEM showed 100% sensitivity (28/28) and higher specificity (92.3%, 24/26) compared with CESM (61.5%, 16/26; P < 0.01). Inter-observer agreement was higher for PEM (κ = 0.674) than for MRI (κ = 0.351) and CESM (κ = 0.210). In a combined analysis of 38 indeterminate cases, PEM correctly reclassified 29 of 30 benign lesions.

Conclusion

In this cohort, PEM demonstrated high diagnostic performance and improved specificity when used as an adjunct to MRI or CESM. These findings suggest that PEM may serve as a valuable problem-solving tool in selected indeterminate cases. However, results should be interpreted with caution given the retrospective design and limited sample size.