APBI 2016
Clinical Performance : CESM vs MG
Authors
N Analysis MX CESM
Dromain, 2011 110 Per
78 % 92%
patient
Fallenberg, 2014
107 Per
77,9% 94,7%
patient
Mokhtar, 2014 60 Per
93,2% 97,7%
patient
Lobbes, 2014 113 Per
96,9% 100%
patient
Tardivel, RSNA 2014
195 Per lesion
94%
Fallenberg et al Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014 107 patients, 56 dense (BI-RADS C / D) 3 radiologists
Jochelson, 2012
52 Per
81% 59%
96% 83%
patient Per lesion
Dromain, RSNA 2011
53 Per
NA 94% 93%
patient Per lesion
Se CESM 92-100% > Se MG Se does not vary with breast density (≠ MG)
Fallenberg, 2013
80 Per
81% 100%
patient
Made with FlippingBook