Can Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Improve Positive Predictive Value for Diagnostic Workup of Suspicious Findings? A Single-Arm Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the positive predictive value-3 (PPV3) and negative predictive value (NPV) of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) when added to the diagnostic workup of suspicious breast findings.

METHODS

This prospective study was IRB approved. We recruited 99 women with abnormal findings on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and/or US to undergo CEM prior to biopsy. Based on final pathology outcomes, PPV3 and NPV were calculated and compared using N-1 chi-squared tests with P-values and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Final pathologic outcome yielded 56.6% (56/99) benign, 5.1% (5/99) benign with upgrade potential (BWUP), and 38.4% (38/99) malignant lesions. Final pathologic outcomes for the 63 positive CEMs yielded 33.3% (21/63) benign, 6.3% (4/63) BWUP, and 60.3% (38/63) malignant lesions. Adding CEM to the diagnostic workup significantly increased PPV3 from 38.4% (38/99) to 60.3% (38/63) (P <.01; 95% CI, 6.1-36.2). Negative predictive value was 100% (36/36) for CEM, 92.9% (13/14; P = .1; 95% CI, -4.2 to 31.4) for DBT, and 75.9% (22/29; P <.05; 95% CI, 8.8-42.1) for US. The number of unnecessary biopsies could be reduced by 36.4% (from 100% [99/99] to 63.6% [63/99]).

CONCLUSION

Adding CEM to the diagnostic workup of suspicious breast findings could improve PPV3 to prevent unnecessary biopsies.

Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study aimed to compare the average glandular dose (AGD) per acquisition in breast biopsies guided by contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), conventional stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The study also investigated the influence of compressed breast thickness (CBT) and density on AGD. Furthermore, the study aimed to estimate the AGD per procedure for each guidance modality.

METHODS

The study included 163 female patients (mean age 57 ± 10 years) who underwent mammography-guided biopsies using SBB (9%), DBT (65%), or CEM (26%) guidance. AGD and CBT data were extracted from DICOM headers, and breast density was visually assessed. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-tests and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Mean AGD per acquisition varied slightly among CEM (1.48 ± 0.22 mGy), SBB (1.49 ± 0.40 mGy), and DBT (1.55 ± 0.47 mGy), with CEM presenting higher AGD at lower CBTs and less dose escalation at higher CBTs. For CBT > 55 mm, CEM showed reduced AGD compared to SBB and DBT (p < 0.001). Breast density had minimal impact on AGD, except for category A. The estimated AGD per procedure was approximately 11.84 mGy for CEM, 11.92 mGy for SBB, and 6.2 mGy for DBT.

CONCLUSION

The study found mean AGD per acquisition to be similar for CEM and SBB, with DBT slightly higher. CEM demonstrated higher AGD at lower CBT but lower AGD at higher CBT, indicating reduced dose escalation with increasing thickness. While breast density had minimal overall impact, variations were noted in category A. DBT was more dose-efficient per procedure due to fewer acquisitions required.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

CEM guidance provides effective lesion visualization within safe radiation limits, improving the precision of percutaneous image-guided breast interventions and supporting its potential consideration in a wider range of breast diagnostic procedures.

KEY POINTS

Limited data exist on the AGD using CEM guidance for breast biopsies. CEM and SBB exhibit similar AGD per acquisition; DBT demonstrated the lowest AGD per procedure. Radiation from CEM guidance fits within safe limits for percutaneous image-guided breast interventions.

Radiological Insights into Acellular Dermal Matrix Integration in Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Implications for Cancer Patient Management

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction (BR) following mastectomy plays a critical role in restoring breast contour and improving patients' quality of life. Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have emerged as valuable adjuncts in BR, providing structural support and enhancing soft tissue integration. However, their radiological characteristics remain underexplored, leading to potential misinterpretation and diagnostic challenges. This study aims to evaluate the imaging features of ADM in post-mastectomy patients using conventional imaging modalities, identifying its temporal evolution and clinical implications for radiologists and surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-centre retrospective study included breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy followed by ADM-assisted BR. Patients were monitored using standardised radiological follow-up protocols, including digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US), at 6 (T0), 12 (T1), and 18 months (T2) postoperatively. The primary outcomes assessed were the presence and evolution of ADM-related imaging findings, differentiation between normal ADM integration and pathological changes, and the role of different imaging modalities in ADM evaluation.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent radiological follow-up. At T0, ADM was identified in 16% of cases, primarily as a peri-capsular hypoechoic thickening on US and a linear peri-implant density on DM. At T1, these findings were partially resolved, with 11% of cases still displaying peri-capsular changes. By T2, imaging signs of ADM were further reduced, with only 7% of cases showing residual peri-capsular thickening or pseudonodular formations. No ADM-related complications, graft rejection, or implant loss were detected. These findings suggest a progressive integration of ADM into the host tissue over time, with characteristic imaging changes that must be recognised to avoid misdiagnosis or unnecessary interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM exhibits a dynamic radiological evolution in post-mastectomy BR, with its imaging characteristics gradually fading. Recognising these features is critical for radiologists and surgeons to ensure accurate interpretation and optimised patient management. A structured imaging follow-up protocol, incorporating US as the primary modality and MRI in cases of inconclusive findings, is recommended to improve diagnostic accuracy. Future multicentre studies with extended follow-up and advanced imaging techniques are necessary to refine radiological criteria and further explore ADM integration patterns. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to enhance clinical decision-making, reduce unnecessary interventions, and optimise patient outcomes in ADM-assisted BR.

Digital Mammography, Tomosynthesis, and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Intraindividual Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose for Screening Examinations

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is growing in clinical use due to its increased sensitivity and specificity compared with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and/or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), particularly in patients with dense breasts. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to perform an intraindividual comparison of mean glandular dose (MGD) with FFDM, DBT, a combination protocol using both FFDM and DBT (hereafter, combined FFDM-DBT), and CEM in patients undergoing breast cancer screening. METHODS. This retrospective study included 389 women (median age, 57.4 years) with an elevated risk of breast cancer who, as part of participation in an earlier prospective clinical trial, underwent breast cancer screening with combined FFDM-DBT and CEM between February 2019 and April 2021. A total of 764 breasts (383 left, 381 right) were evaluated. One craniocaudal (CC) view and one mediolateral oblique (MLO) view were evaluated per breast for each of FFDM, DBT, and CEM. MGD values were extracted from DICOM metadata. BI-RADS breast density categories were extracted from clinical radiology reports. Data were summarized descriptively, including determination of corresponding effective doses. RESULTS. The breast density category was A in zero patients, B in 44 patients (88 breasts), C in 306 patients (599 breasts), and D in 39 patients (77 breasts). The median MGD per breast (CC and MLO views combined) was 4.07 mGy for FFDM alone, 4.97 mGy for DBT alone, 9.38 mGy for combined FFDM-DBT, 3.96 mGy for low-energy CEM, 1.90 mGy for high-energy CEM, and 5.87 for CEM overall. Corresponding effective dose values were 0.49, 0.60, 1.13, 0.48, 0.23, and 0.70 mSv, respectively. The median MGD for density categories B, C, and D, respectively, was 4.01, 4.22, and 2.70 mGy for FFDM; 5.93, 4.93, and 3.17 mGy for DBT; and 5.90, 6.02, and 4.52 mGy for CEM. CONCLUSION. In this intraindividual comparative study of screening examinations, the MGD per breast was higher for CEM than for FFDM or DBT alone. However, these differences were small, and MGD was lower for CEM than for combined FFDM-DBT. CLINICAL IMPACT. These findings are relevant to ongoing considerations of the role of CEM in breast cancer screening pathways.

Breast Imaging: what women & healthcare professionals need to know

Women in Radiology should be aware of the importance of early detection of breast cancer, the most common cancer in women. This knowledge is essential to advocate for high quality breast imaging for women, including themselves and their patients. The imaging modalities used in breast imaging have dramatically changed the way in which breast cancer may be diagnosed, and their use affects the stage at which it is diagnosed. Breast cancer may be screen-detected, either with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasound, breast MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography, and is typically diagnosed at stage 1. Incidental detection with Chest CT, abdominal CT or MRI or by PET CT may also lead to a diagnosis of breast cancer. When detected because of symptoms in women who have not undergone routine screening or as an interval cancer in women after a normal screen typically because of the masking effect of dense breast tissue, breast cancer is typically diagnosed at a more advanced stage, stage IIA or greater. A review of the imaging modalities currently used to diagnose breast cancer is provided and includes the advantages and limitations of each modality and the ways to optimize the imaging quality for detection of breast cancer. Up-to-date recommendations aimed to minimize the harms of delayed diagnosis of breast cancer are summarized to improve the health of women in Radiology and their patients.

Contrast-Enhanced Stereotactic Biopsy (CESB): Patient selection and practical considerations

Since its introduction in 2012, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown increased clinical relevance as a diagnostic tool in breast imaging. Its diagnostic accuracy is on par with breast MRI, rendering it a viable and potentially cost-effective alternative for breast MRI indications, especially in areas with lower accessibility to MRI. Like MRI, CEM occasionally shows 'CEM-only' lesions, i.e., areas of contrast enhancement without corresponding findings on low-energy images, ultrasound, or digital tomosynthesis. The current workaround usually consists of performing MRI-guided biopsy. However, contrast-enhanced stereotactic biopsy (CESB) offers a new alternative and has become commercially available since 2020. This narrative review will outline patient selection, the procedure, important considerations when performing CESB, and an overview of current literature.

Understanding the risk of ionizing radiation in breast imaging: Concepts and quantities, clinical importance, and future directions

BACKGROUND

Conventional mammography remains the primary imaging modality for state-of-the-art breast imaging practice and its benefit (both on diagnostic and screening) was largely reported. In mammography, the typical Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) from X-ray radiation to the breast spans, on average, from 1 to 10 mGy, depending on breast thicknesses, percentage of fibroglandular tissue, and on the examination purpose.

METHODS

The aim of this narrative review is to describe the extent of radiation risk in X-ray breast imaging and discuss the main steps and parameters (e.g. MGD, screening frequency and number of examination views) that may have an influence on the radiation risk assessment.

RESULTS

Even though the radiation doses used with these examinations are very low, as compared to other medical or natural radiation exposures, there is a non-negligible associated risk of radiation-induced cancer. Accurate radiation risk assessment permits to better balance the overall estimation of the benefit-to-risk ratio in X-ray breast imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

It is expected that a better knowledge about radiation-induced cancer risk among population could improve the communications skills between patients and clinicians and could help to increase the awareness in women about radiation risk perception for a transparent and proper informed choice of imaging exam.

Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) guided biopsy using a prone table: A retrospective analysis of the preliminary experience in a single CEM referral center

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the procedural efficacy and patient experience of Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM)-guided biopsies performed in a prone position using the Giotto Class 30,000 system. The emphasis is on the procedural advantages and clinical outcomes for "enhancing-only lesions" (EOLs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 524 CEM examinations conducted from December 2023 to June 2024 at a tertiary referral center was performed. Patients referred for pre-surgical staging or evaluation of inconclusive findings from conventional imaging were included. The study utilized dual-energy imaging and vacuum-assisted biopsy techniques, focusing on patients with at least one EOL identified in their initial CEM. Exclusions were based on the absence of a primary or follow-up CEM conducted at our facility Endpoints of this work included procedure efficiency which was evaluated in terms of technical success (biopsy completion with adequate sampling), dose distribution and timing and detection of additional lesions and patients' comfort evaluation, based on the rate of complications (hematomas) and procedure interruption due to patients' specific request or fainting events.

RESULTS

Among the evaluated cases, 37 EOLs were biopsied. The average procedure time was 15.8 min. Biopsies were successfully completed in 100% of cases. However, complications occurred in 27% of cases, primarily as hematomas and a significant histological finding rate of 97.3% was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Giotto Class 30,000 system for CEM-guided biopsies in a prone position demonstrated high procedural success and was well-tolerated by patients, highlighting its potential to enhance procedural comfort and efficiency. These preliminary results validate the innovative approach, though further studies are required to solidify these findings and explore long-term outcomes.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus MR Imaging of the Breast

Breast MR imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are both techniques that employ intravenously injected contrast agent to assess breast lesions. This approach is associated with a very high sensitivity for malignant lesions that typically exhibit rapid enhancement due to the leakiness of neovasculature. CEM may be readily available at the breast imaging department and can be performed on the spot. Breast MR imaging provides stronger enhancement than the x-ray-based techniques and offers higher sensitivity. From a patient perspective, both modalities have their benefits and downsides; thus, patient preference could also play a role in the selection of the imaging technique.

Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM

BACKGROUND

Automatic exposure control (AEC) plays a crucial role in mammography by determining the exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality based on the absorption characteristics of compressed breasts. This study aimed to characterize the behavior of AEC for digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions used in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for three mammography systems from two manufacturers.

METHODS

Using phantoms simulating various breast thicknesses, 363 studies were acquired using all available AEC modes 165 DM, 132 DBT, and 66 LE-CEM and HE-CEM. AEC behaviors were compared across systems and modalities to assess the impact of different technical components and manufacturers' strategies on the resulting mean glandular doses (MGDs) and image quality metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).

RESULTS

For all systems and modalities, AEC increased MGD for increasing phantom thicknesses and decreased CNR. The median MGD values (interquartile ranges) were 1.135 mGy (0.772-1.668) for DM, 1.257 mGy (0.971-1.863) for DBT, 1.280 mGy (0.937-1.878) for LE-CEM, and 0.630 mGy (0.397-0.713) for HE-CEM. Medians CNRs were 14.2 (7.8-20.2) for DM, 4.91 (2.58-7.20) for a single projection in DBT, 11.9 (8.0-18.2) for LE-CEM, and 5.2 (3.6-9.2) for HE-CEM. AECs showed high repeatability, with variations lower than 5% for all modes in DM, DBT, and CEM.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior between systems, modalities, and AEC modes, influenced by technical components and manufacturers' strategies, with potential implications in radiation dose and image quality in clinical settings.

RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The study emphasized the central role of automatic exposure control in DM, DBT, and CEM acquisitions and the great variability in dose and image quality among manufacturers and between modalities. Caution is needed when generalizing conclusions about differences across mammography modalities.

KEY POINTS

• AEC plays a crucial role in DM, DBT, and CEM. • AEC determines the "optimal" exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality. • The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior, influenced by differences in technical components and strategies.

Physical and dosimetric characterisation of different Contrast-Enhanced digital mammographic systems: A multicentric study

PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a relatively new imaging technique recombining low- and high-energy mammograms to emphasise iodine contrast. This work aims to perform a multicentric physical and dosimetric characterisation of four state-of-the-art CEDM systems.

METHODS

We evaluated tube output, half-value-layer (HVL) for low- and high-energy and average glandular dose (AGD) in a wide range of equivalent breast thicknesses. CIRS phantom 022 was used to estimate the overall performance of a CEDM examination in the subtracted image in terms of the iodine difference signal (S). To calculate dosimetric impact of CEDM examination, we collected 4542 acquisitions on patients.

RESULTS

Even if CEDM acquisition strategies differ, all the systems presented a linear behaviour between S and iodine concentration. The curve fit slopes expressed in PV/mg/cm2 were in the range [92-97] for Fujifilm, [31-32] for GE Healthcare, [35-36] for Hologic, and [114-130] for IMS. Dosimetric data from patients were matched with AGD values calculated using equivalent PMMA thicknesses. Fujifilm exhibited the lowest values, while GE Healthcare showed the highest.

CONCLUSION

The subtracted image showed the ability of all the systems to give important information about the linearity of the signal with the iodine concentrations. All the patient-collected doses were under the AGD EUREF 2D Acceptable limit, except for patients with thicknesses ≤35 mm belonging to GE Healthcare and Hologic, which were slightly over. This work demonstrates the importance of testing each CEDM system to know how it performs regarding dose and the relationship between PV and iodine concentration.

Empowering breast cancer diagnosis and radiology practice: advances in artificial intelligence for contrast-enhanced mammography

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications in breast imaging span a wide range of tasks including decision support, risk assessment, patient management, quality assessment, treatment response assessment and image enhancement. However, their integration into the clinical workflow has been slow due to the lack of a consensus on data quality, benchmarked robust implementation, and consensus-based guidelines to ensure standardization and generalization. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has improved sensitivity and specificity compared to current standards of breast cancer diagnostic imaging i.e., mammography (MG) and/or conventional ultrasound (US), with comparable accuracy to MRI (current diagnostic imaging benchmark), but at a much lower cost and higher throughput. This makes CEM an excellent tool for widespread breast lesion characterization for all women, including underserved and minority women. Underlining the critical need for early detection and accurate diagnosis of breast cancer, this review examines the limitations of conventional approaches and reveals how AI can help overcome them. The Methodical approaches, such as image processing, feature extraction, quantitative analysis, lesion classification, lesion segmentation, integration with clinical data, early detection, and screening support have been carefully analysed in recent studies addressing breast cancer detection and diagnosis. Recent guidelines described by Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) to establish a robust framework for rigorous evaluation and surveying has inspired the current review criteria.

Breast Imaging Physics in Mammography (Part II)

One of the most frequently detected neoplasms in women in Italy is breast cancer, for which high-sensitivity diagnostic techniques are essential for early diagnosis in order to minimize mortality rates. As addressed in Part I of this work, we have seen how conditions such as high glandular density or limitations related to mammographic sensitivity have driven the optimization of technology and the use of increasingly advanced and specific diagnostic methodologies. While the first part focused on analyzing the use of a mammography machine from a physical and dosimetric perspective, in this paper, we will examine other techniques commonly used in breast imaging: contrast-enhanced mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, radio imaging, and include some notes on image processing. We will also explore the differences between these various techniques to provide a comprehensive overview of breast lesion detection techniques. We will examine the strengths and weaknesses of different diagnostic modalities and observe how, with the implementation of improvements over time, increasingly effective diagnoses can be achieved.

Breast Imaging Physics in Mammography (Part I)

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed neoplasm in women in Italy. There are several risk factors, but thanks to screening and increased awareness, most breast cancers are diagnosed at an early stage when surgical treatment can most often be conservative and the adopted therapy is more effective. Regular screening is essential but advanced technology is needed to achieve quality diagnoses. Mammography is the gold standard for early detection of breast cancer. It is a specialized technique for detecting breast cancer and, thus, distinguishing normal tissue from cancerous breast tissue. Mammography techniques are based on physical principles: through the proper use of X-rays, the structures of different tissues can be observed. This first part of the paper attempts to explain the physical principles used in mammography. In particular, we will see how a mammogram is composed and what physical principles are used to obtain diagnostic images.

Iopromide for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pertinent Literature

Background

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging modality. Clinical data is scarce.

Objectives

To summarize clinical evidence on the use of iopromide in CEM for the detection or by systematically analyzing the available literature on efficacy and safety.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

Iopromide-specific publications reporting its use in CEM were identified by a systematic search within Bayer's Product Literature Information (PLI) database and by levering a recent review publication. The literature search in PLI was performed up to January 2023. The confirmatory-supporting review publication was based on a MEDLINE/EMBASE + full text search for publications issued between September 2003 and January 2019. Relevant literature was selected based on pre-defined criteria by 2 reviewers. The comparison of CEM vs traditional mammography (XRM) was performed on published results of sensitivity and specificity. Differences in diagnostic parameters were assessed within a meta-analysis.

Results

Literature search: A total of 31 studies were identified reporting data on 5194 patients. Thereof, 19 studies on efficacy and 3 studies on safety. Efficacy: in 11 studies comparing iopromide CEM vs XRM, sensitivity was up to 43% higher (range 1%-43%) for CEM. Differences in specificity were found to be in a range of -4% to 46% for CEM compared with XRM. The overall gain in sensitivity for CEM vs XRM was 7% (95% CI [4%, 11%]) with no statistically significant loss in specificity in any study assessed. In most studies, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were found to be in favor of CEM. In 2 studies comparing CEM with breast magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI), both imaging modalities performed either equally well or CEM tended to show better results with respect to sensitivity and specificity. Safety: eight cases of iopromide-related adverse drug reactions were reported in 1022 patients (0.8%).

Conclusions

Pertinent literature provides evidence for clinical utility of iopromide in CEM for the detection or confirmation of breast cancer. The overall gain in sensitivity for iopromide CEM vs XRM was 7% with no statistically significant loss in specificity.

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Conventional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography (DM) combined with breast ultrasound (BUS) in women with dense breasts. Between March 2021 and February 2022, patients eligible for CEM with the breast composition category ACR BI-RADS c-d at DM and an abnormal finding (BI-RADS 3-4-5) at DM and/or BUS were considered. During CEM, a nonionic iodinated contrast agent (Iohexol 350 mg I/mL, 1.5 mL/kg) was power-injected intravenously. Images were evaluated independently by two breast radiologists. Findings classified as BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign, while BI-RADS 4-5 were considered malignant. In case of discrepancies, the higher category was considered for DM+BUS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated, using histology/≥12-month follow-up as gold standards. In total, 51 patients with 65 breast lesions were included. 59 (90.7%) abnormal findings were detected at DM+BUS, and 65 (100%) at CEM. The inter-reader agreement was excellent (Cohen's k = 0.87 for DM+BUS and 0.97 for CEM). CEM showed a 93.5% sensitivity (vs. 90.3% for DM+BUS), a 79.4-82.4% specificity (vs. 32.4-35.5% for DM+BUS) (McNemar p = 0.006), a 80.6-82.9% PPV (vs. 54.9-56.0% for DM+BUS), a 93.1-93.3% NPV (vs. 78.6-80.0% for DM+BUS), and a 86.1-87.7% accuracy (vs. 60.0-61.5% for DM+BUS). The AUC was higher for CEM than for DM+BUS (0.865 vs. 0.613 for Reader 1, and 0.880 vs. 0.628, for Reader 2) (p < 0.001). In conclusion, CEM had a better diagnostic performance than DM and BUS alone and combined together in patients with dense breasts.

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.

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.

Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities with Special Focus on Pathology Concordance

Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer. It is characterized by a unique growth pattern making it difficult to detect on conventional breast imaging. ILC can be multicentric, multifocal, and bilateral, with a high likelihood of incomplete excision after breast-conserving surgery. We reviewed the conventional as well as newly emerging imaging modalities for detecting and determining the extent of ILC- and compared the main advantages of MRI vs. contrast-enhanced mammogram (CEM). Our review of the literature finds that MRI and CEM clearly surpass conventional breast imaging in terms of sensitivity, specificity, ipsilateral and contralateral cancer detection, concordance, and estimation of tumor size for ILC. Both MRI and CEM have each been shown to enhance surgical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed ILC that had one of these imaging modalities added to their preoperative workup.

Assessment of male patients' average glandular dose during mammography procedure

Breast cancer is a common malignancy for females (25% of female cancers) and also has low incidence in males. It was estimated that 1% of all breast malignancies occur in males with mortality rate about 20%, with annual increase in incidence. Risk factors include age, family history, exposure to ionizing radiation and high estrogen and low of androgens hormones level. Diagnosis and screening are challenging due to limiting effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Therefore, patients may expose to ionizing radiation that may contribute in breast cancer incidence in males. In literature, limited studies were published regarding radiation exposure for males during mammography. The objective of this research is to quantify patient doses during male mammogram and to estimate the projected radiogenic risk during the procedure. In total, 42 male patients were undergone mammogram for breast cancer diagnosis during two consecutive years. The mean and range of patient age (years) is 45 (23-80). The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the peak tube potential and tube current time product are 28.64 ± 2. and 149 ± 35.1, respectively. The mean, and range of patients' entrance surface air kerma (ESAK, mGy) per single breast procedure was 5.3 (0.47-27.5). Male patient's received comparable radiation dose per mammogram compared to female procedures. With increasing incidence of male breast cancer, proper guidelines are necessary for the mammographic procedure are necessary to reduce unnecessary radiation doses and radiogenic risk.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI for breast cancer staging: detection of additional malignant lesions not seen on conventional imaging

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is more available than MRI for breast cancer staging but may not be as sensitive in assessing disease extent. We compared CEM and MRI in this setting.

METHODS

Fifty-nine women with invasive breast cancer underwent preoperative CEM and MRI. Independent pairs of radiologists read CEM studies (after reviewing a 9-case set prior to study commencement) and MRI studies (with between 5 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging). Additional lesions were assigned National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC) scores. Positive lesions (graded NBCC ≥ 3) likely to influence surgical management underwent ultrasound and/or needle biopsy. True-positive lesions were positive on imaging and pathology (invasive or in situ). False-positive lesions were positive on imaging but negative on pathology (high-risk or benign) or follow-up. False-negative lesions were negative on imaging (NBCC < 3 or not identified) but positive on pathology.

RESULTS

The 59 women had 68 biopsy-proven malignant lesions detected on mammography/ultrasound, of which MRI demonstrated 66 (97%) and CEM 67 (99%) (p = 1.000). Forty-one additional lesions were detected in 29 patients: six of 41 (15%) on CEM only, 23/41 (56%) on MRI only, 12/41 (29%) on both; CEM detected 1/6 and MRI 6/6 malignant additional lesions (p = 0.063), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1/13 (8%) and 6/26 (23%) (p = 0.276).

CONCLUSIONS

While MRI and CEM were both highly sensitive for lesions detected at mammography/ultrasound, CEM may not be as sensitive as MRI in detecting additional otherwise occult foci of malignancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12613000684729.

Impact of age and breast thickness on mean glandular dose of standard digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

This study compares the mean glandular dose (MGD) across 2D, 3D projection and Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) mammographic techniques. The important metadata were extracted from the digital mammography console. 650 subjects were clustered based on projections, age and CBT. The MGD of 2D, 3D, and CEDM was positively correlated with CBT but inversely correlated with the age factor. This study indicate MGD of CEDM was 16% and 22% lower compared to 2D and 3D techniques, respectively.

Contrast enhanced mammography: focus on frequently encountered benign and malignant diagnoses

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is becoming a widely adopted modality in breast imaging over the past few decades and exponentially so over the last few years, with strong evidence of high diagnostic performance in cancer detection. Evidence is also growing indicating comparative performance of CEM to MRI in sensitivity with fewer false positive rates. As application of CEM ranges from potential use in screening dense breast populations to staging of known breast malignancy, increased familiarity with the modality and its implementation, and disease processes encountered becomes of great clinical significance. This review emphasizes expected normal findings on CEM followed by a focus on examples of the commonly encountered benign and malignant pathologies on CEM.

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.

Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising vascular-based breast imaging technique with high diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer. Dual-energy acquisition using low and high energy x-ray spectra following intravenous iodinated contrast injection provides both anatomic and functional information in the same examination. The low-energy images are equivalent to standard digital mammography and the post-processed recombined images depict enhancement analogous to contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Thus, CEM has the potential to detect abnormal morphologic features as well as neovascularity associated with breast cancer. Since its emergence in 2011, CEM has consistently demonstrated superior performance compared with standard mammography and mammography plus ultrasound, particularly in women with dense breasts, with high sensitivity approaching that of MRI, supporting its use as a cost-effective diagnostic and screening tool. CEM has been primarily used in the diagnostic setting to evaluate patients with screening abnormalities or with symptomatic breasts, to perform preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer, and to evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. More recently, CEM has been performed to screen women who have an intermediate to high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. In addition to its high diagnostic performance, CEM is less expensive and more accessible than MRI and potentially better tolerated by patients. Minor drawbacks to CEM include a slightly increased radiation dose compared with standard mammography and a low risk for contrast allergy reaction. The aim of this study is to review the background, current literature, and future applications of CEM in breast cancer screening.

Addressing Misinformation About the Canadian Breast Screening Guidelines

Screening mammography has been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality by 41% in screened women ages 40-69 years. There is misinformation about breast screening and the Canadian breast screening guidelines. This can decrease confidence in screening mammography and can lead to suboptimal recommendations. We review some of this misinformation to help radiologists and referring physicians navigate the varied international and provincial guidelines. We address the ages to start and stop breast screening. We explore how these recommendations may vary for specific populations such as patients who are at increased risk, transgender patients and minorities. We identify who would benefit from supplemental screening and review the available supplemental screening modalities including ultrasound, MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography and others. We describe emerging technologies including the potential use of artificial intelligence for breast screening. We provide background on why screening policies vary across the country between provinces and territories. This review is intended to help radiologists and referring physicians understand and navigate the varied international and provincial recommendations and guidelines and make the best recommendations for their patients.

Evaluation of exposure factors of dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography to optimize radiation dose with improved image quality

Background

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography (DECEM) is an advanced breast imaging technique of digital mammography.

Purpose

To assess the total radiation dose received from complete DECEM using different combinations of exposure parameters for low- and high-energy images.

Materials and methods

A dedicated phantom with three different concentrations of iodine inserts was used. Each iodine insert was 10 mm in diameter and concentration of 1.0 mgI/cm³, 2.0 mgI/cm³, and 4.0 mgI/cm³. The phantom was exposed at varying kVp levels. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was estimated. Contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) of the iodine inserts were used to assess the image quality.

Results

The optimum CNR of the recombined images was obtained by using 28 kVp + 49 kVp tube voltage combination for 50 mm thickness, 50% fibroglandular phantom only with a 26% dose increase compared to the highest voltages (32 kVp + 49 kVp) that can be used for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) imaging. The CNR value was increased with increasing iodine concentration (R² > 0.99).

Conclusion

The use of as low as possible tube voltage for the LE imaging of standard 50% fibroglandular–50% adipose, 50 mm thickness breast while using the highest tube voltage for HE imaging has reduced the MGD while keeping optimum image quality.

An approach to dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) using a double layer filter: dosimetric and image quality assessment

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) is a recently developed advanced technique in digital mammography that uses an iodinated intravenous contrast agent to assess tumor angiogenesis. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic potential of DE-CESM recombined images in terms of radiation dose and image quality. A 50% fibroglandular-50% adipose, custom-made phantom with iodine inserts of 1.0 mgI cm^-3, 2.0 mgI cm^-3, 4.0 mgI cm^-3was used for the estimation of mean glandular dose (MGD) and the image quality. Low-energy (LE) images were acquired with the W/Rh, W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu and W/Rh + 0.5 mm Al while high energy images (HE) are acquired with the W/Rh, W/Rh + 0.06 mm Ba, W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu, and W/Rh + 0.03 mm Ce anode filter combinations. The total MGD was reduced up to a maximum from 1.75 mGy to 1.45 mGy by using Rh + 0.01 mm Cu double-layer filter for both LE and HE imaging of 50 mm, standard 50% fibroglandular phantom compared to Rh single-layer filter with W target. The minimum total MGD reduction (1.69 mGy) was observed when Rh + 0.5 mm Al was used for LE and Rh + 0.06 mm Ba was used for HE exposure. The image quality was comparable with the single-layer filter. The use of W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu or W/Rh + 0.5 mm Al as target/filter combination for LE exposure and W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu for HE exposure can reduce the additional radiation dose delivered by DE-CESM without degrading the image quality.

Comparison between second-look ultrasound and second-look digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of additional lesions with presurgical CESM

OBJECTIVES

To compare second-look ultrasound (SL-ultrasound) with second-look digital breast tomosynthesis (SL-DBT) in the detection of additional lesions (ALs) with presurgical contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).

METHODS

We retrospectively included 121 women with 128 ALs from patients who underwent CESM for presurgical staging at our centre from September 2016 to December 2018. These ALs underwent SL-ultrasound and a retrospective review of DBT (SL-DBT) performed 1-3 weeks prior to CESM to evaluate the performance of each technique individually and in combination. ALs in CESM images were evaluated according to enhancement type (focus, mass, or non-mass), size (<10 mm or >10 mm) and level of suspicion (BI-RADS 2, 3, 4 or 5). Our gold-standard was post-biopsy histology, post-surgical specimen or >24 month negative follow-up. McNemar's test was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Out of the 128 ALs, an imaging correlate was found for 71 (55.5 %) with ultrasound, 79 (61.7%) with DBT, 53 (41.4 %) with DBT and ultrasound, and 97 (75.8%) with ultrasound and/or DBT. SL-DBT demonstrated a higher detection rate vs SL-ultrasound in non-mass enhancement (NME) pattern (p: 0.0325) and ductal carcinoma in situ histological type (p: 0.0081). Adding SL-DBT improved the performance vs SL-ultrasound alone in the overall sample (p: <0.0001) and in every subcategory identified; adding SL-ultrasound to SL-DBT improved the detectability of ALs in the overall sample and in every category except for NME (p: 0.0833), foci (p: 0.0833) and B3 lesions (p: 0.3173).

CONCLUSION

Combined second-look imaging (SL-DBT+ SL-ultrasound) for CESM ALs is superior to SL-DBT alone and SL-ultrasound alone. In B3 lesions, NME, and foci, the analysis of a larger sample could determine whether adding SL-ultrasound to SL-DBT is necessary or not.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Thanks to its high sensitivity, CESM is a useful tool in presurgical staging to detect the extent of the disease burden and identify ALs not detected with conventional imaging. Since CESM-guided biopsy systems are still scarcely available in clinical practice, it is necessary to look for other approaches to histologically characterize ALs detected with CESM. In our study, combined second-look imaging (SL-DBT + SL-ultrasound) showed better performance in terms of detectability of ALs, than either SL-DBT or SL-ultrasound alone, and allowed us to identify 91.2% of ALs that turned out to be malignant at final histology; for the remaining 8.8% it was still necessary to perform MRI or MRI-guided biopsy. However, this issue could be solved once CESM-guided biopsies spread in clinical practice. SL-DBT demonstrated a higher detection rate than SL-ultrasound in NME and ductal carcinoma in situ histology.

The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening

The purpose of breast cancer screening is to find cancers early to reduce mortality and to allow successful treatment with less aggressive therapy. Mammography is the gold standard for breast cancer screening. Its efficacy in reducing mortality from breast cancer was proven in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from the early 1960s to the mid 1990s. Panels that recommend breast cancer screening guidelines have traditionally relied on the old RCTs, which did not include considerations of breast density, race/ethnicity, current hormone therapy, and other risk factors. Women do not all benefit equally from mammography. Mortality reduction is significantly lower in women with dense breasts because normal dense tissue can mask cancers on mammograms. Moreover, women with dense breasts are known to be at increased risk. To provide equity, breast cancer screening guidelines should be created with the goal of maximizing mortality reduction and allowing less aggressive therapy, which may include decreasing the interval between screening mammograms and recommending consideration of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. This review will address the issue of dense breasts and the impact on the stage of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis, and discuss options for supplemental screening.

Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison

The radiation dose associated with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has been investigated only by single-center studies. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiation dose between two centers performing CEM within two prospective studies, using the same type of equipment. The CEM mean glandular dose (MGD) was computed for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) images and their sum was calculated for each view. MGD and related parameters (entrance dose, breast thickness, compression, and density) were compared between the two centers using the Mann−Whitney test. Finally, per-patient MGD was calculated by pooling the two datasets and determining the contribution of LE and HE images. A total of 348 CEM examinations were analyzed (228 from Center 1 and 120 from Center 2). The median total MGD per view was 2.33 mGy (interquartile range 2.19−2.51 mGy) at Center 1 and 2.46 mGy (interquartile range 2.32−2.70 mGy) at Center 2, with a 0.15 mGy median difference (p < 0.001) equal to 6.2%. LE-images contributed between 64% and 77% to the total patient dose in CEM, with the remaining 23−36% being associated with HE images. The mean radiation dose for a two-view bilateral CEM exam was 4.90 mGy, about 30% higher than for digital mammography.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced, Spectral Mammography (CESM) and 3T Magnetic Resonance Compared to Full-Field Digital Mammography plus Ultrasound in Breast Lesions: Results of a (Pilot) Open-Label, Single-Centre Prospective Study

Introduction: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of CESM and 3T MRI compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), plus US, in the evaluation of advanced breast lesions. Materials and Methods: Consenting women with suspicious findings underwent FFDM, US, CESM and 3T MRI. Breast lesions were histologically assessed, with histology being the gold standard. Two experienced breast radiologists, blinded to cancer status, read the images. Diagnostic accuracy of (1) CESM as an adjunct to FFDM and US, and (2) 3T MRI as an adjunct to CESM compared to FFDM and US, was assessed. Measures of accuracy were sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: There were 118 patients included along with 142 histologically characterized lesions. K agreement values were 0.69, 0.68, 0.63 and 0.56 for concordance between the gold standard and FFDM, FFDM + US, CESM and MRI, respectively (p < 0.001, for all). K concordance for CESM was 0.81 with FFDM + US and 0.73 with MRI (p value < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: CESM may represent a valuable alternative and/or an integrating technique to MRI in the evaluation of breast cancer patients.

Mean glandular dose in the mammary gland and dose of radiation in the thyroid gland and lens in women with and without breast implants during different modalities of mammography

There have always been concerns about the secondary effects of diagnostic methods that use ionizing radiation. During mammography, the parameters to be concerned about are the mean glandular dose and the scatter dose. We evaluated the dose of radiation to the breast, thyroid gland, and lens in digital mammography in women with and without implants, in tomosynthesis in women with and without implants, and in contrast-enhanced mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 212 women with and without disease who were attended at the Centro Clínico de Estereotaxia, CECLINES, in Caracas, Venezuela, between June 2017 and August 2017; the women were classified into five groups according to the mammographic modality used to evaluate them and whether or not they had implants. The statistical analysis included descriptive statistics for the study population. We used the Mann-Whitney U to compare the mean glandular dose and dose in the thyroid gland and lens between groups.

RESULTS

The mean glandular dose and the dose of radiation received in the thyroid and lens were within the acceptable range. In a few exceptions, the mean glandular dose per view was slightly higher than 3 mGy. The scatter dose to the thyroid gland and the lens during mammography has a very small contribution to the annual dose equivalent.

CONCLUSION

The mean glandular dose and the scatter dose to the thyroid gland and lens delivered during tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in women with implants were higher than those delivered during other mammographic techniques in women without implants.

Impact of Obtaining a Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Spot Compression View on Assessment of Equivocal DBT Findings

Background: A recently introduced DBT device allows obtaining DBT spot compression views using a small paddle during DBT acquisition. Objective: To evaluate the impact on diagnostic performance of obtaining a DBT spot compression view for assessment of equivocal DBT findings. Methods: This retrospective study included 102 women (mean age, 60 years) in whom a DBT spot compression view was obtained to characterize an equivocal finding on DBT at the performing radiologist's discretion, performed from December 14, 2018 to December 18, 2019. Two fellowship-trained breast radiologists and one breast imaging fellow independently reviewed examinations, aware of the location of the equivocal lesions. Readers first assigned a BI-RADS category using standard DBT views followed immediately by a category using the DBT spot compression view. BIRADS categories 2-3 were considered negative, and categories ≥4a were considered positive. Histology and at least 1 year of imaging follow-up served as reference standard. Intrareader agreement for one reader and interreader agreement among all readers were evaluated using kappa coefficients. Diagnostic performance was compared between DBT with and without DBT spot compression views using McNemar tests. Results: Intrareader agreement increased from 0.43 to 0.72, and interreader agreement increased from 0.21 to 0.45, based on kappa coefficients for DBT with and without spot compression views. Eighteen cancers were present. Compared with standard DBT views, DBT spot compression views yielded significantly increased accuracy for all three readers (74% vs 90%, 73% vs 94%, 71% vs 94%); significantly increased specificity for all three readers (69% vs 90%, 75% vs 94%; 68% vs 93%); and significantly increased sensitivity for one reader (67% vs 94%) without significant change in sensitivity for the two other readers (89% vs 100%; 100% vs 89%). Radiation dose was 1.97 mGy for the DBT spot compression view, versus 1.78-1.81 mGy for standard DBT craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views. Conclusion: The DBT spot compression view increased intrareader agreement, interreader agreement, and diagnostic accuracy (primarily from improved specificity); the view's supplemental dose was slightly higher than that of a standard DBT view. Clinical impact: DBT spot compression may help characterize equivocal DBT findings, reducing further workup for benign findings.

Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT)

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the radiation dose received during CEDM, short and long protocol (CEDM SP and CEDM LP), with dose received during DM and DBT on patients with varying breast thickness, age and density.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2019 and December 2019, patients having 6214 DM, 3662 DBT and 173 CEDM examinations in our department were analyzed. Protocol total single breast AGD has been evaluated for all clinical imaging protocols, extracting AGD values and exposure data from the dose DICOM Structured Report (SR) information stored in the hospital PACS system. Protocol AGD was calculated as the sum of single projection AGDs carried out in every exam for each clinical protocol. A total amount of 23,383 exams for each breast were analyzed. Protocol AGDs, stratified as a function of patient breast compression thickness, age, and breast density were assessed.

RESULTS

The total protocol AGD median values for each protocol are: 2.8 mGy for DM, 3.2 mGy for DBT, 6.0 mGy for DM+DBT, 4.5 mGy for CEDM SP, 7.4 mGy for CEDM SP_DBT (CEDM SP protocol with DBT), 8.4 mGy for CEDM LP and 11.6 mGy for CEDM LP_DBT (CEDM LP protocol with DBT). CEDM SP AGD median value is 59% higher than DM AGD median value and 40% lesser than DM+DBT AGD median; this last difference was statistically confirmed with a p-value <0.001. AGD value for each standard breast CEDM SP projection results to be below 3-mGy limit. AGD value for each standard breast CEDM SP projection results to be below 3 mGy, as required by international legislation. For dense breasts, the AGD median value is 4.2 mGy, with the first and third quartile of 3.3 mGy and 6.0 mGy respectively; for non-dense breasts, the AGD median value is 4.7 mGy, with first and third quartile of 3.5 mGy and 6.3 mGy respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically tested and confirmed, with a p-value of 0.039.

CONCLUSION

CEDM SP results in higher radiation exposure compared with conventional DM and DBT but lower than the Combo mode. The dose administered during the CEDM SP is lower in patients with dense breasts regardless of their size. An interesting outcome, considering the ongoing studies on CEDM screening in patients with dense breasts.

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS WITH FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND CONTRAST-ENHANCED SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY

The purpose is to compare full-field digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) technologies on three mammography systems in terms of image quality and patient dose. Two Senographe Essential with DBT and CESM (denoted S1 and S2) and one Selenia Dimensions (S3) with FFDM and DBT were considered. Dosimetry methods recommended in the European protocol were used. Image quality was tested with CDMAM in FFDM and DBT and with ideal observer method in FFDM. Mean values of mean glandular dose (MGD) from whole patient samples on S1, S2 and S3 were as follows: FFDM 1.65, 1.84 and 2.23 mGy; DBT 2.03, 1.96 and 2.87 mGy; CESM 2.65 and 3.16 mGy, respectively. S3 exhibited better low-contrast detectability for the smallest sized discs of CDMAM and ideal observer in FFDM, and for the largest sized discs in DBT, at similar dose levels.

Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose between Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Early detection of breast cancer is diagnosed using mammography, the gold standard in breast screening. However, its increased use also provokes radiation-induced breast malignancy. Thus, monitoring and regulating the mean glandular dose (MGD) is essential. The purpose of this study was to determine MGD for full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in the radiology department of a single centre. We also analysed the exposure factors as a function of breast thickness. A total of 436 patients underwent both FFDM and DBT. MGD was auto calculated by the mammographic machine for each projection. Patients' data included compressed breast thickness (CBT), peak kilovoltage (kVp), milliampere-seconds (mAs) and MGD (mGy). Result analysis showed that there is a significant difference in MGD between the two systems, namely FFDM and DBT. However, the MGD values in our centre were comparable to other centres, as well as the European guideline (<2.5 mGy) for a standard breast. Although DBT improves the clinical outcome and quality of diagnosis, the risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis should not be neglected. Regular quality control testing on mammography equipment must be performed for dose monitoring in women following a screening mammography in the future.

Influence of double layer filter on mean glandular dose (MGD) and image quality in low energy image of contrast enhanced spectral mammography (LE-CESM)

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate mean glandular dose (MGD) and image quality in low energy imaging from contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) when using double-layer filtration.

METHODOLOGY

A dedicated phantom was used to quantitatively estimate the MGD and image quality. The target slab of the phantom consisted of three iodine coins having a concentration of 1.0 mgI/cm³, 2.0 mgI/cm³, 4.0 mgI/cm³, a 100% adipose equivalent coin and a 100% glandular equivalent coin. The phantom was exposed using a semiautomated function at 28 k, 30 kV and 32 kV. MGD. Contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) were estimated for Mo/Rh, Mo/Rh + Cu, Mo/Rh + Al and Mo/Rh + Cd combinations using three breast equivalent compositions.

RESULTS

MGD was reduced up to a maximum of 1.03 mGy from 1.17 mGy for 100% adipose tissue. 1.18 mGy from 1.34 mGy for 50% glandular tissue and 1.39 mGy from 1.72 mGy for the 100% glandular phantom when using double-layer filtration. All of the above-mentioned results were obtained for the 50 mm phantom using 32 kV. CNR and FOM values were not significantly reduced with a double-layer filter when compared to a single-layer filter.

CONCLUSION

The present study concluded that Mo/Rh + Cu is the best combination to reduce the MGD significantly when compared to Mo/Rh + Al or Mo/Rh + Cd. Mo/Rh + Cu also achieved optimal image quality when compared to the Mo/Rh single filter combination.

IMPLICATIONS OF PRACTICE

The use of a double-layer filter in low energy imaging of CESM results in a significant reduction in MGD without degrading the quality of the image.

Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a combination of standard mammography and iodinated contrast material administration. During the last decade, CEM has found its place in breast imaging protocols: after i.v. administration of iodinated contrast material, low-energy and high-energy images are retrieved in one acquisition using a dual-energy technique, and a recombined image is constructed enabling visualisation of areas of contrast uptake. The increased incorporation of CEM into everyday clinical practice is reflected in the installation of dedicated equipment worldwide, the (commercial) availability of systems from different vendors, the number of CEM examinations performed, and the number of scientific articles published on the subject. It follows that ever more radiologists will be confronted with this technique, and thus be required to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field. Most importantly, radiologists must have sufficient knowledge on how to interpret CEM images and be acquainted with common artefacts and pitfalls. This comprehensive review provides a practical overview of CEM technique, including CEM-guided biopsy; reading, interpretation and structured reporting of CEM images, including the accompanying learning curve, CEM artefacts and interpretation pitfalls; indications for CEM; disadvantages of CEM; and future developments.

The PROCEM study protocol: Added value of preoperative contrast-enhanced mammography in staging of malignant breast lesions - a prospective randomized multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Correct preoperative estimation of the malignant extent is crucial for optimal planning of breast cancer surgery. The sensitivity of mammography is lower in dense breasts, and additional imaging techniques are sometimes warranted. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown similar sensitivity and in some cases better specificity, than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in small, observational studies. CEM may be more cost-effective than MRI, and may provide better identification of the tumor extent, however, no randomized trials have been performed to date to investigate the added value of CEM. In a feasibility study, we found that the treatment was changed in 10/47 (21%) cases after additional CEM. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the added value of CEM in preoperative staging of breast cancer in a randomized study.

METHOD

This prospective randomized study will include 440 patients with strongly suspected or established diagnosis of breast malignancy, based on assessment with mammography, ultrasound and core biopsy/cytology, and for whom primary surgery is planned. Patients will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based randomization tool to additional investigation with CEM or no further imaging. The CEM findings will be taken into consideration, which may lead to changes in primary treatment, which is the primary endpoint of this study. Secondary endpoints include rate of reoperation and number of avoidable mastectomies, as well as a cost-benefit analysis of additional CEM. Patient-reported health-related quality of life will be investigated at 1 year with the validated Breast-Q™ questionnaire. The rate of local recurrence or new cancer ipsi- or contralaterally within 5 years will be assessed from medical records and pathology reports.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this trial is to explore the added value of CEM in preoperative staging of breast cancer. The results obtained from this study will contribute to our knowledge on CEM as an additional imaging method to standard investigation with digital mammography and ultrasound. The findings may also provide additional information on which patient groups would benefit from CEM, and on the economic aspects of CEM in standard preoperative practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov , registration no: NCT04437602 , date of registration: June 18, 2020.

Current Status of Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Comprehensive Review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed and updated review of the physics, techniques, indications, limitations, reporting, implementation and management of contrast enhanced mammography.

BACKGROUND

Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), is an emerging iodine-based modified dual energy mammography technique. In addition to having the same advantages as standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM), CEM provides information regarding tumor enhancement, relying on tumor angiogenesis, similar to dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). This article reviews current literature on CEM and highlights considerations that are critical to the successful use of this modality.

CONCLUSION

Multiple studies point to the advantage of using CEM in the diagnostic setting of breast imaging, which approaches that of DCE-MRI.

Can the delayed phase of quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography improve the diagnostic performance on breast masses?

Background

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an imaging tool for breast cancer detection. Most quantitative analyses of CEM involve two phases, and it is unknown whether an added delayed phase can improve its diagnostic performance compared to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). This study aimed to evaluate whether the delayed phase improves the diagnostic performance of CEM in distinguishing malignant and benign masses.

Methods

This prospective study enrolled 111 women with 111 pathologically confirmed breast masses. CEM was performed after the injection of contrast agent between 2-3 minutes (T1, early phase), 4-5 minutes (T2, second phase), and 7-9 minutes (T3, delayed phase). The quantitative enhanced gray value of lesions (LGV) and the lesion to background grey value ratio (LBR) were measured within each phase's corresponding region of interest (ROI). Based on their changes, the kinetic enhancement pattern was assessed among the three phases, and the diagnostic performance was subsequently measured.

Results

The LGV and LBR of malignant masses were significantly greater than those of benign lesions. The diagnostic performance of LGV and LBR at the delayed phase was consistent with that of the second phase but poorer than that of the early phase. The sensitivity of LGV_T1 + LGV_T2 + LGV_T3 was less than that of LGV_T1 + LGV_T2 (86.5% vs. 95.1%) with a similar area under the curve (AUC), specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV), negative-predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. The sensitivity of LBR_T1 + LBR_T2 + LBR_T3 increased by 19.6%, and specificity decreased by 20.7% compared with LBR_T1 + LBR_T2. The LGV_T1 + LGV_T2 + LGV_T3 + kinetic enhancement (T1-T3) had the lowest sensitivity (67.0%), but the highest specificity (75.8%), and the sensitivity of LBR_T1 + LBR_T2 + LBR_T3 + kinetic enhancement (T1-T3) was higher than that of LBR_T1 + LBR_T2 + kinetic enhancement (T1-T2) (90.2% vs. 63.4%, respectively).

Conclusions

The addition of a delayed CEM phase for breast cancer diagnosis yielded limited performance improvement. The quantitative analysis combined with enhancement patterns between the two consecutive phases has great potential to distinguish between malignant and benign lesions.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: How Does It Work?

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an imaging technique that uses iodinated contrast medium to improve visualization of breast lesions and assessment of tumor neovascularity. Through modifications in x-ray energy, high- and low-energy images of the breast are combined to highlight areas of contrast medium pooling. The use of contrast material introduces different workflows, artifacts, and risks related to the contrast medium dose. In addition, the need to acquire multiple images in each view introduces different workflows, artifacts, and risks associated with the radiation dose. Although CEM and conventional mammography share many underlying principles, it is important to understand how these two mammographic examinations differ and the mechanisms that facilitate image contrast at CEM. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a viable alternative to contrast-enhanced breast MRI, and it may increase access to vascular imaging while reducing examination cost. Intravenous iodinated contrast materials are used in CEM to enhance the visualization of tumor neovascularity. After injection, imaging is performed with dual-energy digital mammography, which helps provide a low-energy image and a recombined or iodine image that depict enhancing lesions in the breast. CEM has been demonstrated to help improve accuracy compared with digital mammography and US in women with abnormal screening mammographic findings or symptoms of breast cancer. It has also been demonstrated to approach the accuracy of breast MRI in preoperative staging of patients with breast cancer and in monitoring response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There are early encouraging results from trials evaluating CEM in the screening of women who are at an increased risk of breast cancer. Although CEM is a promising tool, it slightly increases radiation dose and carries a small risk of adverse reactions to contrast materials. This review details the CEM technique, diagnostic and screening uses, and future applications, including artificial intelligence and radiomics.

Mean glandular dose in the mammary gland and dose of radiation in the thyroid gland and lens in women with and without breast implants during different modalities of mammography

There have always been concerns about the secondary effects of diagnostic methods that use ionizing radiation. During mammography, the parameters to be concerned about are the mean glandular dose and the scatter dose. We evaluated the dose of radiation to the breast, thyroid gland, and lens in digital mammography in women with and without implants, in tomosynthesis in women with and without implants, and in contrast-enhanced mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 212 women with and without disease who were attended at the Centro Clínico de Estereotaxia, CECLINES, in Caracas, Venezuela, between June 2017 and August 2017; the women were classified into five groups according to the mammographic modality used to evaluate them and whether or not they had implants. The statistical analysis included descriptive statistics for the study population. We used the Mann-Whitney U to compare the mean glandular dose and dose in the thyroid gland and lens between groups.

RESULTS

The mean glandular dose and the dose of radiation received in the thyroid and lens were within the acceptable range. In a few exceptions, the mean glandular dose per view was slightly higher than 3mGy. The scatter dose to the thyroid gland and the lens during mammography has a very small contribution to the annual dose equivalent.

CONCLUSION

The mean glandular dose and the scatter dose to the thyroid gland and lens delivered during tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in women with implants were higher than those delivered during other mammographic techniques in women without implants.

Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) combines conventional mammography with iodinated contrast material to improve cancer detection. CEM has comparable performance to breast MRI without the added cost or time of conventional MRI protocols. Thus, this technique may be useful for indications previously reserved for MRI, such as problem-solving, determining disease extent in patients with newly diagnosed cancer, monitoring response to neoadjuvant therapy, evaluating the posttreatment breast for residual or recurrent disease, and potentially screening in women at intermediate- or high-risk for breast cancer. This article will provide a comprehensive overview on the past, present, and future of CEM, including its evolving role in the diagnostic and screening settings.