Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study

State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technology with promise for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and procedural guidance. However, best uses of CEM in comparison with other breast imaging modalities such as tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and MRI remain inconclusive in many clinical settings. This review article summarizes recent peer-reviewed literature, emphasizing retrospective reviews, prospective clinical trials, and meta-analyses published from 2020 to 2023. The intent of this article is to supplement prior comprehensive reviews and summarize the current state-of-the-art of CEM.

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced breast MRI and recently also contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are available for breast imaging. The aim of the current overview is to explore existing evidence and ongoing challenges of contrast-enhanced breast imaging.

METHODS

This narrative provides an introduction to the contrast-enhanced breast imaging modalities breast MRI and CEM. Underlying principle, techniques and BI-RADS reporting of both techniques are described and compared, and the following indications and ongoing challenges are discussed: problem-solving, high-risk screening, supplemental screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue, breast implants, neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) response monitoring, MRI-guided and CEM- guided biopsy.

RESULTS

Technique and reporting for breast MRI are standardised, for the newer CEM standardisation is in progress. Similarly, compared to other modalities, breast MRI is well established as superior for problem-solving, screening women at high risk, screening women with extremely dense breast tissue or with implants; and for monitoring response to NST. Furthermore, MRI-guided biopsy is a reliable technique with low long-term false negative rates. For CEM, data is as yet either absent or limited, but existing results in these settings are promising.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging achieves highest diagnostic performance and should be considered essential. Of the two contrast-enhanced modalities, evidence of breast MRI superiority is ample, and preliminary results on CEM are promising, yet CEM warrants further study.

European guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of breast lesions with uncertain malignant potential (B3 lesions) developed jointly by EUSOMA, EUSOBI, ESP (BWG) and ESSO

INTRODUCTION

Breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) include atypical ductal and lobular hyperplasias, lobular carcinoma in situ, flat epithelial atypia, papillary lesions, radial scars and fibroepithelial lesions as well as other rare miscellaneous lesions. They are challenging to categorise histologically, requiring specialist training and multidisciplinary input. They may coexist with in situ or invasive breast cancer (BC) and increase the risk of subsequent BC development. Management should focus on adequate classification and management whilst avoiding overtreatment. The aim of these guidelines is to provide updated information regarding the diagnosis and management of B3 lesions, according to updated literature review evidence.

METHODS

These guidelines provide practical recommendations which can be applied in clinical practice which include recommendation grade and level of evidence. All sections were written according to an updated literature review and discussed at a consensus meeting. Critical appraisal by the expert writing committee adhered to the 23 items in the international Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) tool.

RESULTS

Recommendations for further management after core-needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) diagnosis of a B3 lesion reported in this guideline, vary depending on the presence of atypia, size of lesion, sampling size, and patient preferences. After CNB or VAB, the option of vacuum-assisted excision or surgical excision should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team and shared decision-making with the patient is crucial for personalizing further treatment. De-escalation of surgical intervention for B3 breast lesions is ongoing, and the inclusion of vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) will decrease the need for surgical intervention in further approaches. Communication with patients may be different according to histological diagnosis, presence or absence of atypia, or risk of upgrade due to discordant imaging. Written information resources to help patients understand these issues alongside with verbal communication is recommended. Lifestyle interventions have a significant impact on BC incidence so lifestyle interventions need to be suggested to women at increased BC risk as a result of a diagnosis of a B3 lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide a state-of-the-art overview of the diagnosis, management and prognosis of B3 lesions in modern multidisciplinary breast practice.

Imaging Preferences in Women With a History of Breast Cancer Receiving Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

OBJECTIVE

There is interest in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) to screen breast cancer survivors, yet it is unclear whether they would accept CEM as their annual exam. The purpose of this study was to understand patient preferences to guide CEM implementation for screening.

METHODS

Consecutive women with breast cancer history who had CEM as their annual mammogram from July 2020 to August 2021 at a single academic institution completed an 18-question survey regarding prior contrast imaging, CEM experience, and comparison to other breast imaging exams. Response proportions were calculated, and chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used to evaluate associations of demographics with responses.

RESULTS

A total of 78% (104/133) of women undergoing CEM provided results. Most were satisfied with CEM (99%, 103/104), had nothing to complain about (87%, 90/104), did not find CEM anxiety provoking (69%, 72/104), felt comfortable having contrast for annual imaging (94%, 98/104), were willing to accept the small risk of a contrast reaction if CEM would find their cancer (93%, 97/104), and would like to have CEM for their exam next year (95%, 99/104). Compared with mammography, 23% (24/104) reported CEM was a better experience, and 63% (66/104) reported CEM was about the same. Of those who had prior MRI, the majority reported CEM was better (53%, 29/55) and would prefer CEM if both MRI and CEM had an equal chance of detecting cancer (73%, 41/56). Most preferences did not differ significantly according to demographics.

CONCLUSION

Most women surveyed considered CEM to be satisfactory and preferred compared to other breast screening modalities.

Improving the malignancy prediction of breast cancer based on the integration of radiomics features from dual-view mammography and clinical parameters

Radiomics has been a promising imaging biomarker for many malignant diseases. We developed a novel radiomics strategy that incorporating radiomics features extracted from dual-view mammograms and clinical parameters for identifying benign and malignant breast lesions, and validated whether the radiomics assessment could improve the accurate diagnosis of breast cancer. A total of 380 patients (mean age, 52 ± 7 years) with 621 breast lesions utilizing mammograms on craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views were randomly allocated into the training (n = 486) and testing (n = 135) sets in this retrospective study. A total of 1184 and 2368 radiomics features were extracted from single-position region of interest (ROI) and position-paired ROI, separately. Clinical parameters were then combined for better prediction. Recursive feature elimination and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator methods were applied to select optimal predictive features. Random forest was used to conduct the predictive model. Intraclass correlation coefficient test was used to assess repeatability and reproducibility of features. After preprocessing, 467 radiomics features and clinical parameters remained in the single-view and dual-view models. The performance and significance of models were quantified by the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The correlation analysis between variables was evaluated using the correlation ratio and Pearson correlation coefficient. The model using a combination of dual-view radiomics and clinical parameters achieved a favorable performance (AUC: 0.804, 95% CI: 0.668-0.916), outperformed single-view model and model without clinical parameters. Incorporating with radiomics features of dual-view (CC&MLO) mammogram, age, breast density, and type of suspicious lesions can provide a noninvasive approach to evaluate the malignancy of breast lesions and facilitate clinical decision-making.

Barriers to Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Accumulating evidence shows that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has higher diagnostic performance than digital mammography and ultrasound and comparable diagnostic performance to MRI for various indications. CEM also offers certain practical advantages for patients. Nevertheless, the clinical implementation of CEM has been limited because of a range of factors. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review explores such factors hindering CEM implementation. These factors include the following: the risks of iodinated contrast media, increased radiation exposure, indications for which CEM is not the preferred test or for which further evidence is needed, workflow adjustments needed when performing CEM examinations, incomplete availability of CEM-guided biopsy systems, and reimbursement challenges. Considerations that currently mitigate or are expected to mitigate these factors are also highlighted.

History of Mammography: Analysis of Breast Imaging Diagnostic Achievements over the Last Century

Breast cancer is the most common forms of cancer and a leading cause of mortality in women. Early and correct diagnosis is, therefore, essential to save lives. The development of diagnostic imaging applied to the breast has been impressive in recent years and the most used diagnostic test in the world is mammography, a low-dose X-ray technique used for imaging the breast. In the first half of the 20th century, the diagnosis was in practice only clinical, with consequent diagnostic delay and an unfavorable prognosis in the short term. The rise of organized mammography screening has led to a remarkable reduction in mortality through the early detection of breast malignancies. This historical review aims to offer a complete panorama of the development of mammography and breast imaging during the last century. Through this study, we want to understand the foundations of the pillar of radiology applied to the breast through to the most modern applications such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), artificial intelligence, and radiomics. Understanding the history of the development of diagnostic imaging applied to the breast can help us understand how to better direct our efforts toward an increasingly personalized and effective diagnostic approach. The ultimate goal of imaging applied to the detection of breast malignancies should be to reduce mortality from this type of disease as much as possible. With this paper, we want to provide detailed documentation of the main steps in the evolution of breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast neoplasms; we also want to open up new scenarios where the possible current and future applications of imaging are aimed at being more precise and personalized.

Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting

This study aims to evaluate the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of CEM versus Digital Mammography (DM) as well as versus DM plus one-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), which were performed in the same patients at short intervals of time. A preventive screening examination in high-risk asymptomatic patients between 2020 and 2022 was performed with two-view Digital Mammography (DM) projections (Cranio Caudal and Medio Lateral) plus one Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) projection (mediolateral oblique, MLO) in a single session examination. For all patients in whom we found a suspicious lesion by using DM + DBT, we performed (within two weeks) a CEM examination. AGD and compression force were compared between the diagnostic methods. All lesions identified by DM + DBT were biopsied; then, we assessed whether lesions found by DBT were also highlighted by DM alone and/or by CEM. We enrolled 49 patients with 49 lesions in the study. The median AGD was lower for DM alone than for CEM (3.41 mGy vs. 4.24 mGy, p = 0.015). The AGD for CEM was significantly lower than for the DM plus one single projection DBT protocol (4.24 mGy vs. 5.55 mGy, p < 0.001). We did not find a statistically significant difference in the median compression force between the CEM and DM + DBT. DM + DBT allows the identification of one more invasive neoplasm one in situ lesion and two high-risk lesions, compared to DM alone. The CEM, compared to DM + DBT, failed to identify only one of the high-risk lesions. According to these results, CEM could be used in the screening of asymptomatic high-risk patients.

Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?

Purpose

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared.The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program.

Methods

The study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified.

Results

CEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM's AUC was 0.97 and DBT's 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23).

Conclusions

In this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy.