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