DIAGNOSTIC VALUES OF DCE-MRI QUANTITATIVE PARAMETERS COMBINED WITH X-RAY MAMMOGRAPHY IN BREAST CANCER

Xiaoqing Zhou^*, Bin Yang, Bin Ye, Ning Yang, Caisheng Li

General Surgery Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou 341699, Jiangxi, China

Objective: The purpose of the study was to investigate the clinical diagnostic values of quantitative parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) combined with X-ray mammography in breast cancer. 

Methods: A total of 68 patients with breast cancer treated in our hospital from November 2017 to November 2020 were selected as the study subjects, and with the pathological diagnosis as the gold standards, they underwent the diagnosis by X-ray mammography and DCE-MRI quantitative parameters combined with X-ray mammography (the joint diagnostic method), respectively. After that, the diagnostic values of these two different diagnostic methods in breast cancer were compared. 

Results: Compared with the results of pathological diagnosis, the diagnostic efficacy of the joint diagnostic method in invasive carcinomas was significantly better than that of X-ray mammography (P<0.05), and there were no significant differences between the two diagnostic methods in non-invasive carcinomas and other rare carcinomas (P>0.05). The number of lesions detected by the joint diagnostic method was significantly higher than that detected by X-ray mammography (P<0.05); the joint diagnostic method performed significantly better in the diagnosis of lesions (10-20 mm) (P<0.05); there were no significant differences between the two diagnostic methods in the diagnosis of lesions (≤10 mm and >20 mm) (P>0.05). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the joint diagnostic method were significantly higher than those of X-ray mammography (P<0.05). There were no significant differences between the two diagnostic methods in overdiagnosis and missed diagnosis (P>0.05). The cases of definite diagnosis detected by the joint diagnostic method were significantly more than those detected by X-ray mammography (P<0.05). In addition, the diagnostic efficacy of the joint diagnostic method was significantly better than that of X-ray mammography in pN1 (P<0.05), and there were no significant differences between the two diagnostic methods in the diagnosis of pN0, pN2 and pN3 (P>0.05). 

Conclusion: Compared with X-ray mammography, the joint diagnostic method, with higher clinical diagnostic values, can make a more precise measurement of lesion size in breast cancer and provide more accurate reference for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, which is worthy of application and popularization.