This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Breast, Mammography, Ultrasound, Diagnostic procedure, Cancer, Molecular, genomics and proteomics
Authors:
P. Bartolomé, A. Quilez, F. Martinez Regueira, A. Fernandez Montero, A. Elizalde, L. J. Pina Insausti; Pamplona/ES
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2017/B-0772
Conclusion
Additional US significantly increased the sensitivity of mammography in all immunohistochemical patterns.
For Luminal A cancers:
Whatever the combination of mammography plus an additional technique,
the sensitivity is significantly higher than for mammography alone (MXUS (84%) and MXDBT (78%) vs MX (46%); p<0.001 for both comparisons).
At comparing MXUS vs MXDBT no significant differences were found (p=0.185).
This means both combinations worked similarly.
For Luminal B cancers:
Whatever the combination of mammography plus an additional technique,
the sensitivity is significantly higher than for mammography alone (MXUS (90%) and MXDBT (74%) vs MX (60%); p<0.001 for both comparisons).
At comparing MXUS vs MXDBT,
the combination MXUS worked significantly better than MXDBT (S: 90% vs 74%; p<0.001)
For Non-Luminal cancers:
The sensitivity of the combination MXUS was significantly better than the sensitivity of mammography alone (92.5 vs 65%,
p<0.001), however,
the combination MXDBT didn't significantly increase the sensitivty of mammography (72.5 vs 65%,
p=0.25)
At comparing MXUS vs MXDBT,
the combination MXUS worked significantly better than MXDBT (S: 92.5% vs 72.5%; p<0.001)