Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences




The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic breast MRI techniques for diagnosing breast lesions, assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEM’s using histopathological findings, and compare lesion size measurements obtained from both methods with pathological size.Materials and methods: This prospective study included 120 lesions, of which 70 were malignant, in 104 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within a week. Two radiologists independently evaluated the MR and CEM images in separate sessions, using the BI-RADS classification system. Additionally, the maximum sizes of lesion were measured. Diagnostic accuracy parameters and the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed for the two modalities. The correlation between the maximum diameter of breast lesions observed in MRI, CEM, and pathology was analyzed.Results: The overall diagnostic values for MRI were as follows: sensitivity 97.1%, specificity 60%, positive predictive value (PPV) 77.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) 93.8%, and accuracy 81.7%. Correspondingly, for CEM, the sensitivity, accuracy, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 97.14%, 81.67%, 60%, 77.27%, and 93.75%, respectively. The ROC analysis of CEM revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.907 for observer 1 and 0.857 for observer 2, whereas MRI exhibited an AUC of 0.910 for observer 1 and 0.914 for observer 2. Notably, CEM showed the highest correlation with pathological lesion size (r = 0.660 for observer 1 and r = 0.693 for observer 2, p < 0.001 for both).Conclusion: CEM can be used with high sensitivity and similar diagnostic performance comparable to MRI for diagnosing breast cancer. CEM proves to be a successful diagnostic method for precisely determining tumor size.


Breast cancer, dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging, contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

First Page


Last Page