Relative Costs and Outcomes of a Contrast-Enhanced Mammography-Guided Biopsy Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the performance and cost implications of contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy (CEM Bx).

METHODS

This is a prospective study from May 5, 2021, to April 18, 2022, across 2 U.S. academic centers, evaluating technical success, patient/radiologist feedback, and operational factors of CEM Bx. Inclusion criteria included that patients be 40 years or older and recommended for biopsy with suspicious findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Descriptive statistics are reported for clinical outcomes, length of procedure, and user and participant feedback. An estimate of cost was made by comparing general Medicare costs that are being billed for CEM Bx and post-clip mammogram ($475.48) to the Medicare costs of MRI-guided biopsy (MRI Bx) and post-clip placement mammogram ($845.94).

RESULTS

Eighty-two participants enrolled. Twenty-two were excluded at the time of CEM Bx (22/82, 27%). Sixty participants were included (mean age 57 years, range 33 to 81 years) with 63 suspicious CEM lesions. The malignancy rate was 22% (14/63). A technical success rate of 100% was achieved. Average CEM Bx time was 29% to 33% the average reported MRI-guided breast biopsy times (CEM Bx = 11 minutes; MRI Bx = 33 to 38 minutes), indicating operational efficiencies. A positive opinion of CEM Bx was reported by 78% of radiologists, 93% of technologists, and 98% of patients. The estimated cost for each CEM Bx was ~ 45% lower than MRI Bx.

CONCLUSION

CEM Bx demonstrates high success rates and satisfaction scores. CEM Bx resulted in shorter procedure times, enhanced operational efficiency, and ~45% reduction in costs compared with MRI Bx. As advancements continue, we anticipate CEM Bx will offer a cost-efficient and timely option for breast biopsy.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation: Early Struggles and Successes

We used focus groups of radiologists who led the implementation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in their practice to identify barriers and strategies for adoption. Members of the Society of Breast Imaging in the United States who served as lead on CEM implementation were invited to participate in 2 separate focus groups. Ten breast imaging radiologists with varied geographic and practice type (60% academic, 30% private, and 10% community practice) participated. There were 4 major themes identified: patient selection, workflow, contrast, and billing. Patient selection varied widely among practices, with some limiting CEM to patients unable to obtain MRI and others routinely using CEM for diagnostic workup. Lack of Food and Drug Administration approval limited screening applications in some practices. Workflow challenges were numerous, and site-specific solutions were developed for ordering, scheduling, staffing, and intravenous access. There were universal concerns regarding contrast, including safe administration, response to reactions, and biopsy planning for findings only visible on CEM. Contrast reaction training, including conducting mock codes at some practices, helped alleviate concerns of the radiologists and technologists. Finally, billing was an administrative hurdle that influenced patient selection. Ample preparation is needed to successfully start a CEM program with particular attention to patient selection, workflow, contrast administration/reactions, and billing.

Evaluation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: large-scale single center experience, update to 1005 cases

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of CEM in the preoperative staging of breast cancer in a large cohort of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of preoperative staging CEM exams was conducted at our centre between June 2016 and June 2021. We evaluated cases where CEM influenced the type of surgery, necessitated additional biopsies or imaging, and identified additional lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), and accuracy of CEM for the entire sample and each subgroup setting were calculated. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and multivariate analysis were performed.

RESULTS

991 women, mean age 61.3 years old [35-93], with 1005 malignant lesions were included. CEM led to additional imaging in 36.7% (364/991) women and to additional biopsies in 18.5% (183/991) women. CEM altered the initial surgical plan based on conventional imaging in 226 out of 991 patients (22.8%). CEM had a sensitivity in the whole population of 91.5% (204/223), specificity of 96.8% (757/782), PPV of 89.1% (204/229), NPV of 97.5% (757/776) and an accuracy of 95.6% (961/1005); the AUC of the ROC curve was 0.941. We found CEM better performed in patients with a low BPE level compared with a high BPE level (ρ = 0.028861). We see that the presence of additional lesions at CEM was the only significant predictor in the model.

CONCLUSION

This study reaffirms the high diagnostic accuracy of CEM for preoperative breast cancer staging in a large patient cohort.

Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging modality that generates low-energy (LE) images that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that show lesion vascularity such as MRI. Supplemental whole-breast US increases cancer detection rates when performed with FFDM but not with MRI. Purpose To compare the performance of CEM, LE images, and LE images supplemented with whole-breast US in breast cancer detection during screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study recruited female participants from December 2014 to February 2019 who were scheduled for screening mammography and whole-breast US. CEM (including LE images and recombined images) and whole-breast US images were interpreted by separate breast radiologists blinded to the findings on images from the other modality. Statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and abnormal interpretation rate were assessed. Biopsy recommendation rate and PPVs of biopsies performed (PPV3) were calculated at the lesion level. Results Across 468 participants (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-59 years]; all female participants), nine screen-detected cancers were diagnosed in eight participants: one cancer was depicted at LE imaging alone (cancer detection rate, 2.1 of 1000), four were depicted at LE imaging with whole-breast US (cancer detection rate, 8.5 of 1000), and eight were depicted at CEM (cancer detection rate, 17.1 of 1000; P < .05). The abnormal interpretation rate was 10.3% (48 of 468) for LE images, 13.7% (64 of 468) for LE images with whole-breast US, and 18.6% (87 of 468) for CEM (P < .001). The biopsy recommendation rate was 15.0 of 1000 for LE images, 38.4 of 1000 for LE images with whole-breast US, and 42.7 of 1000 for CEM. Seven biopsies were recommended based on LE images (PPV3 of one of seven [14.3%]), 18 biopsies based on LE images with whole-breast US (with a PPV3 of five of 18 [27.8%]), and 20 biopsies based on CEM (PPV3 of 9 of 20 [45.0%]). Conclusion Breast cancer detection improved with CEM compared with LE images alone or LE images with whole-breast US. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310698 © RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Lesion Conspicuity in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Retrospective Analysis of Tumor Characteristics

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of tumor characteristics on lesion conspicuity in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and identify factors associated with different levels of conspicuity.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we analyzed 552 patients with breast cancer who underwent CEM. Lesion conspicuity was categorized into three levels: 1 (low), 2 (moderate), and 3 (high). Tumor characteristics included age, histological subtype, hormone receptor status, HER2 status, Ki67 index, tumor grade, and molecular subtype. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess associations between lesion conspicuity and these factors.

RESULTS

Of the 552 cases, the majority showed mass enhancement (78.1%), followed by non-mass enhancement (NME) (16.8%), and a combination of mass and NME (4.0%). Lesion conspicuity was significantly associated with enhancement type on CEM (p < 0.001). High conspicuity (score 3) was predominantly observed in masses (84.8%) compared to NME (7.6%). Larger tumor dimensions (median 20 mm) were also associated with higher conspicuity (p < 0.001). Molecular subtypes differed significantly in conspicuity, with Luminal A tumors showing lower conspicuity compared to HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancers (p = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, lesion conspicuity was strongly associated with enhancement type (p < 0.001) and tumor dimensions (p < 0.001), while histological subtype and molecular characteristics had no significant independent impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesion conspicuity in CEM is primarily influenced by the type of enhancement and tumor size. Mass-forming lesions, particularly larger ones, are more conspicuous, while NME tends to result in lower conspicuity. These findings suggest that enhancement patterns and tumor dimensions are key factors to consider when interpreting CEM in breast cancer diagnosis.

Hormonal Regulation of Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-enhanced Mammography

Background Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) is an important diagnostic and prognostic imaging biomarker. Although hormonal regulation of BPE at breast MRI has been investigated, information regarding hormonal regulation of BPE at contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) remains scarce. Purpose To investigate how BPE at CEM changes across various short- and long-term physiologic and pharmacologic hormonal effects, including menopausal status, lactation, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and tamoxifen therapy and its cessation. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included CEM examinations performed between December 2012 and January 2024. A computational search was performed to identify CEMs performed in patients with various hormonal statuses and several subgroups of patients were identified, including premenopausal, postmenopausal, lactating, HRT, and tamoxifen subgroups. For patients who received tamoxifen therapy, the first follow-up image at treatment cessation was included, when available. The four ordinal BPE grades, ranging from minimal to marked, as reported in the official radiologic reports were used for analysis. Subgroup comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Results A total of 507 female patients (mean age, 49.8 years ± 10.8 [SD]; range, 25-75 years) were included. Premenopausal patients (n = 200) exhibited higher BPE compared with postmenopausal patients (n = 200) (median grade, 1.0 [IQR, 0-2.0] vs 0 [IQR, 0-1.0]; P < .001). Lactating patients (n = 16) exhibited higher BPE (median grade, 3.0; IQR, 2.0-3.0) compared with nonlactating controls (median grade, 1.0; IQR, 0-2.0; P < .001). Patients receiving HRT (n = 14) exhibited higher BPE (median grade, 1.5; IQR, 0-3.0) compared with postmenopausal controls (median grade, 0; IQR, 0-1.0; P < .001). Patients receiving tamoxifen therapy (n = 77) exhibited lower BPE (median grade, 1.0; IQR, 0-2.0) compared with nontreated control patients (9% of patients with high BPE vs 31% for controls, P < .001) and increased BPE (median grade, 2.0; IQR, 1.5-2.5; P = .003) at the cessation of tamoxifen therapy. Conclusion Hormonal effects, including menopausal status, lactation, HRT, and tamoxifen therapy, influenced the degree of BPE at CEM. © RSNA, 2025 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Slanetz in this issue.

Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging

Imaging research pathways focus increasingly on the development of individualised approaches to breast cancer detection, diagnosis and management. Detection of breast cancer with X-ray mammography may fail in some cancer subtypes with limited changes in morphology/tissue density and in women with dense breasts. International organisations offer recommendations for contrast-enhanced breast imaging, as it provides superior sensitivity for screening, local staging and assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response, when compared with standard X-ray mammography (including tomosynthesis) and breast ultrasound. Arguably, the evidence base is stronger for contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). Unfortunately, patient access to breast MRI in rural and remote areas is limited by practical limitations and equipment licensing restrictions. Moreover, breast MRI is an expensive test, likely to be out of reach for many women. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) offers an attractive alternative to improve patient access to functional breast imaging. It is a new type of digital, dual energy X-ray mammography that can be performed on most modern units, following a relatively inexpensive hard- and software upgrade. In this paper, we review the rapidly accumulating evidence that CEM can provide similar diagnostic accuracy to CE-MRI, though at a significantly lower cost and offering greater comfort to the patient. The adoption of CEM can help meet the anticipated increased demand for CE-MRI.

Extremely dense breasts: A comprehensive review of increased cancer risk and supplementary screening methods

Women with extremely dense breasts account for approximately 10% of the screening population and face an increased lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. At the same time, the sensitivity of mammography, the first-line screening modality, is significantly reduced in this breast density group, owing to the masking effect of the abundant fibroglandular tissue. Consequently, this population has garnered increasing scientific attention due to the unique diagnostic challenge they present. Several research initiatives have attempted to address this diagnostic challenge by incorporating supplemental imaging modalities such as ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography. Each of these modalities offers different benefits as well as limitations, both clinically and practically, including considerations of availability and costs. The purpose of this article is to critically review the background, latest scientific evidence, and future directions for the use of the various supplemental screening techniques for women with extremely dense breasts.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Literature Review of Clinical Uses for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Oncology

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) uses intermittent dual-energy (low- and high-energy) exposures to produce low-energy mammograms and recombine enhanced images after the administration of iodized contrast medium, which provides more detailed information to detect breast cancers by using the features of morphology and abnormal uptake. In this article, we reviewed the literature to clarify the clinical applications of CEM, including (1) the fundamentals of CEM: the technique, radiation exposure, and image interpretation; (2) its clinical uses for cancer diagnosis, including problem-solving, palpable mass, suspicious microcalcification, architecture distortion, screening, and CEM-guided biopsy; and (3) the concerns of surgical oncology in pre-operative and neoadjuvant chemotherapy assessments. CEM undoubtedly plays an important role in clinical practice.

The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography is being increasingly implemented clinically, providing much improved contrast between tumour and background structures, particularly in dense breasts. Although CEM is similar to conventional mammography it differs via an additional exposure with high energy X-rays (≥ 40 kVp) and subsequent image subtraction. Because of its special operational aspects, the CEM aspect of a CEM unit needs to be uniquely characterised and evaluated. This study aims to verify the utility of a commercially available phantom set (BR3D model 020 and CESM model 022 phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)) in performing key CEM performance tests (linearity of system response with iodine concentration and background subtraction) on two models of CEM units in a clinical setting. The tests were successfully performed, yielding results similar to previously published studies. Further, similarities and differences in the two systems from different vendors were highlighted, knowledge of which may potentially facilitate optimisation of the systems.

Prospective Study of Supplemental Screening With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Women With Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer: Results of the Prevalence Round

PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board-approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2-, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM.

CONCLUSION

A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.

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.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer

Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (P = .003). However, there was decreased CEM specificity (88.9%; 1108 of 1246; 95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) compared with LE imaging (specificity, 96.2%; 1199 of 1246; 95% CI: 95.0, 97.2) (P < .001). Compared with specificity at baseline, CEM specificity at follow-up improved to 90.7% (705 of 777; 95% CI: 88.5, 92.7; P = .01). Conclusion Compared with LE imaging, CEM showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity in female patients with extremely dense breasts, although specificity improved at follow-up. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Lobbes in this issue.

Current use and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM): a survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)

OBJECTIVES

To perform a survey among members of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) regarding the use of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

A panel of nine board-certified radiologists developed a 29-item online questionnaire, distributed to all EUSOBI members (inside and outside Europe) from January 25 to March 10, 2023. CEM implementation, examination protocols, reporting strategies, and current and future CEM indications were investigated. Replies were exploratively analyzed with descriptive and non-parametric statistics.

RESULTS

Among 434 respondents (74.9% from Europe), 50% (217/434) declared to use CEM, 155/217 (71.4%) seeing less than 200 CEMs per year. CEM use was associated with academic settings and high breast imaging workload (p < 0.001). The lack of CEM adoption was most commonly due to the perceived absence of a clinical need (65.0%) and the lack of resources to acquire CEM-capable systems (37.3%). CEM protocols varied widely, but most respondents (61.3%) had already adopted the 2022 ACR CEM BI-RADS® lexicon. CEM use in patients with contraindications to MRI was the most common current indication (80.6%), followed by preoperative staging (68.7%). Patients with MRI contraindications also represented the most commonly foreseen CEM indication (88.0%), followed by the work-up of inconclusive findings at non-contrast examinations (61.5%) and supplemental imaging in dense breasts (53.0%). Respondents declaring CEM use and higher CEM experience gave significantly more current (p = 0.004) and future indications (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a trend towards academic high-workload settings and its prevalent use in patients with MRI contraindications, CEM use and progressive experience were associated with increased confidence in the technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In this first survey on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) use and perspectives among the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) members, the perceived absence of a clinical need chiefly drove the 50% CEM adoption rate. CEM adoption and progressive experience were associated with more extended current and future indications.

KEY POINTS

• Among the 434 members of the European Society of Breast Imaging who completed this survey, 50% declared to use contrast-enhanced mammography in clinical practice. • Due to the perceived absence of a clinical need, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is still prevalently used as a replacement for MRI in patients with MRI contraindications. • The number of current and future CEM indications marked by respondents was associated with their degree of CEM experience.

Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new imaging technique that allows morphologic, anatomic and functional imaging of the breast. The aim of our study was to validate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to mammography (MMG) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in daily clinical practice. This retrospective study included 316 consecutive patients who underwent MMG, DBT and CEM at the Centre for Prevention and Diagnosis of Chronic Diseases of Primorsko-goranska County. Two breast radiologists independently analyzed the image data, without available anamnestic information and without the possibility of comparison with previous images, to determine the presence of suspicious lesions and their morphological features according to the established criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The diagnostic value of MMG, DBT and CEM was assessed by ROC analysis. The interobserver agreement was excellent. CEM showed higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity compared to MMG and DBT, the reporting time for CEM was significantly shorter, and CEM findings resulted in a significantly lower proportion of equivocal findings (BI-RADS 0), suggesting fewer additional procedures. In conclusion, CEM achieves high diagnostic accuracy while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility and applicability in complex clinical settings.

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.

Locoregional staging of breast cancer: contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

Breast cancer diagnosis often involves assessing the locoregional spread of the disease through MRI, as multicentricity, multifocality and/or bilaterality are increasingly common. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a potential alternative method. This study compares the performance of CEM and MRI in preoperative staging of women with confirmed breast carcinoma. Patients were also asked to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire to rate their comfort level with each investigation.

METHODS

From May 1st, 2021 to May 1st, 2022, we enrolled 70 women with confirmed breast carcinoma who were candidates for surgery. For pre-operative locoregional staging, all patients underwent CEM and MRI examination, which two radiologists evaluated blindly. We further investigated all suspicious locations for disease spread, identified by both CEM and MRI, with a second-look ultrasound (US) and eventual histological examination.

RESULTS

In our study cohort, MRI and CEM identified 114 and 102 areas of focal contrast enhancement, respectively. A true discrepancy between MRI and CEM occurred in 9 out of 70 patients examined. MRI reported 8 additional lesions that proved to be false positives on second-look US in 6 patients, while it identified 4 lesions that were not detected by CEM and were pathological (true positives) in 3 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CEM showed results comparable to MRI in the staging of breast cancer in our study population, with a high rate of patient acceptability.

Addition of Contrast-enhanced Mammography to Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Prospective TOCEM Trial Interim Analysis

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is often inadequate for screening women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). The ongoing prospective Tomosynthesis or Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, or TOCEM, trial includes three annual screenings with both DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Purpose To perform interim assessment of cancer yield, stage, and recall rate when CEM is added to DBT in women with PHBC. Materials and Methods From October 2019 to December 2022, two radiologists interpreted both examinations: Observer 1 reviewed DBT first and then CEM, and observer 2 reviewed CEM first and then DBT. Effects of adding CEM to DBT on incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR), cancer type and node status, recall rate, and other performance characteristics of the primary radiologist decisions were assessed. Results Among the participants (mean age at entry, 63.6 years ± 9.6 [SD]), 1273, 819, and 227 women with PHBC completed year 1, 2, and 3 screening, respectively. For observer 1, year 1 cancer yield was 20 of 1273 (15.7 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and 29 of 1273 (22.8 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 7.1 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 3.2, 13.4]) for DBT plus CEM (P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 cancer yield was four of 1046 (3.8 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and eight of 1046 (7.6 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 3.8 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 1.0, 7.6]) for DBT plus CEM (P = .001). Year 1 recall rate for observer 1 was 103 of 1273 (8.1%) for (incidence) DBT alone and 187 of 1273 (14.7%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 84 of 1273, 6.6% [95% CI: 5.3, 8.1]; P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 recall rate was 40 of 1046 (3.8%) for DBT and 92 of 1046 (8.8%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 52 of 1046, 5.0% [95% CI: 3.7, 6.3]; P < .001). In 18 breasts with cancer detected only at CEM after integration of both observers, 13 (72%) cancers were invasive (median tumor size, 0.6 cm) and eight of nine (88%) with staging were N0. Among 1883 screenings with adequate reference standard, there were three interval cancers (one at the scar, two in axillae). Conclusion CEM added to DBT increased early breast cancer detection each year in women with PHBC, with an accompanying approximately 5.0%-6.6% recall rate increase. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04085510 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

The Correlation between Morpho-Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Features and Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Breast cancer, a major contributor to female mortality globally, presents challenges in detection, prompting exploration beyond digital mammography. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM), integrating morphological and functional information, emerges as a promising alternative, offering advantages in cost-effectiveness and reduced anxiety compared to MRI. This study investigates CEM's correlation with breast cancer prognostic factors, encompassing histology, grade, and molecular markers. In a retrospective analysis involving 114 women, CEM revealed diverse lesion characteristics. Statistical analyses identified correlations between specific CEM features, such as spiculated margins and irregular shape, and prognostic factors like tumor grade and molecular markers. Notably, spiculated margins predicted lower grade and HER2 status, while irregular shape correlated with PgR and Ki-67 status. The study emphasizes CEM's potential in predicting breast cancer prognosis, shedding light on tumor behavior. Despite the limitations, including sample size and single-observer analysis, the findings advocate for CEM's role in stratifying breast cancers based on biological characteristics. CEM features, particularly spiculated margins, irregular shape, and enhancement dynamics, may serve as valuable indicators for personalized treatment decisions. Further research is crucial to validate these correlations and enhance CEM's clinical utility in breast cancer assessment.

The Role of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography After Cryoablation of Breast Cancer

Image-guided cryoablation is an emerging therapeutic technique for the treatment of breast cancer and is a treatment strategy that is an effective alternate to surgery in select patients. Tumor features impacting the efficacy of cryoablation include size, location in relation to skin, and histology (e.g., extent of intraductal component), underscoring the importance of imaging for staging and workup in this patient population. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) utilization is increasing in both the screening and diagnostic settings and may be useful for follow-up imaging after breast cancer cryoablation, given its high sensitivity for cancer detection and its advantages in terms of PPV, time, cost, eligibility, and accessibility compared with contrast-enhanced MRI. This Clinical Perspective describes the novel use of CEM after breast cancer cryoablation, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of CEM compared with alternate imaging modalities, expected benign postablation CEM findings, and CEM findings suggestive of residual or recurrent tumor.

False-Positive and False-Negative Contrast-enhanced Mammograms: Pitfalls and Strategies to Improve Cancer Detection

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new breast imaging modality that uses intravenous contrast material to increase detection of breast cancer. CEM combines the structural information of conventional mammography with the functional information of tumor neovascularity. Initial studies have demonstrated that CEM and MRI perform with similar accuracies, with CEM having a slightly higher specificity (fewer false positives), although larger studies are needed. There are various reasons for false positives and false negatives at CEM. False positives at CEM can be caused by benign lesions with vascularity, including benign tumors, infection or inflammation, benign lesions in the skin, and imaging artifacts. False negatives at CEM can be attributed to incomplete or inadequate visualization of lesions, marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) obscuring cancer, lack of lesion contrast enhancement due to technical issues or less-vascular cancers, artifacts, and errors of lesion perception or characterization. When possible, real-time interpretation of CEM studies is ideal. If additional views are necessary, they may be obtained while contrast material is still in the breast parenchyma. Until recently, a limitation of CEM was the lack of CEM-guided biopsy capability. However, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared two devices to support CEM-guided biopsy using a stereotactic biopsy technique. The authors review various causes of false-positive and false-negative contrast-enhanced mammograms and discuss strategies to reduce these diagnostic errors to improve cancer detection while mitigating unnecessary additional imaging and procedures. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography with MRI Utilizing an Enriched Reader Study: A Breast Cancer Study (CONTRRAST Trial)

Background Despite growing interest in using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for breast cancer screening as an alternative to breast MRI, limited literature is available. Purpose To determine whether CEM is noninferior to breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI (AB MRI) and superior to two-dimensional mammography in an asymptomatic population simulating those who would present for screening and then undergo diagnostic work-up. Materials and Methods This enriched reader study used CEM and MRI data prospectively collected from asymptomatic individuals at a single institution from December 2014 to March 2020. Case sets were obtained at screening, as part of work-up for a screening-detected finding, or before biopsy of a screening-detected abnormality. All images were anonymized and randomized, and all 12 radiologists interpreted them. For CEM interpretation, readers were first shown low-energy images as a surrogate for digital mammography and asked to give a forced Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score for up to three abnormalities. The highest score was used as the case score. Readers then reviewed the full CEM examination and scored it similarly. After a minimum 1-month washout, the readers similarly interpreted AB MRI and full MRI examinations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, powered to test CEM noninferiority to full MRI, was performed. Results The study included 132 case sets (14 negative, 74 benign, and 44 malignant; all female participants; mean age, 54 years ± 12 [SD]). The mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for digital mammography, CEM, AB MRI, and full MRI were 0.79, 0.91, 0.89, and 0.91, respectively. CEM was superior to digital mammography (P < .001). No evidence of a difference in AUC was found between CEM and AB MRI and MRI. Conclusion In an asymptomatic study sample, CEM was noninferior to full MRI and AB MRI and was superior to digital mammography. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03482557 and NCT02275871 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Compact reverse time migration: A real-time approach for full waveform ultrasound imaging for breast

We present compact reverse time migration (CRTM), a real-time ultrasound imaging method that can exploit the full waveform information of ultrasonic wave records for imaging breast tissue. Conventional reverse time migration (RTM) computes the gradient of the reflective ultrasound data with respect to the perturbation of the velocity model of the soft tissues and the gradient can indicate the interface between different types of body tissue. In contrast to conventional reflection ultrasound (B-mode), which is based on the high-frequency approximation to the wave equation, the RTM algorithm is based on the complete wave equation, and can thus exploit the full waveform (wide-spectrum) information of the data and provide an image with higher resolution. Unfortunately, the computational burden of RTM is noticeably higher than the ray-based B-mode. This precludes real-time applications, one of the most important features of ultrasound imaging. The proposed CRTM algorithm can significantly reduce the computational costs of RTM, such that it can be applied for real-time imaging. We demonstrate the performance of CRTM through a synthetic experiment of ultrasound breast imaging. CRTM can be potentially adapted to related signal-processing fields, such as seismic imaging, acoustic camera systems, and radar imaging.

Prospective Evaluation of the Cost of Performing Breast Imaging Examinations Using a Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Method: A Single-Center Study

OBJECTIVE

Measuring the cost of performing breast imaging is difficult in healthcare systems. The purpose of our study was to evaluate this cost using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and to evaluate cost drivers for different exams.

METHODS

An IRB-approved, single-center prospective study was performed on 80 female patients presenting for breast screening, diagnostic or biopsy exams from July 2020 to April 2021. Using TDABC, data were collected for each exam type. Included were full-field digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), US and MRI exams, and stereotactic, US-guided and MRI-guided biopsies. For each exam type, mean cost and relative contributions of equipment, personnel and supplies were calculated.

RESULTS

Screening MRI, CEM, US, DBT, and FFDM costs were $249, $120, $83, $28, and $30. Personnel was the major contributor to cost (60.0%-87.0%) for all screening exams except MRI where equipment was the major contributor (62.2%). Diagnostic MRI, CEM, US, and FFDM costs were $241, $123, $70, and $43. Personnel was the major contributor to cost (60.5%-88.6%) for all diagnostic exams except MRI where equipment was the major contributor (61.8%). Costs of MRI-guided, stereotactic and US-guided biopsy were $1611, $826, and $356. Supplies contributed 40.5%-49.8% and personnel contributed 30.7%-55.6% to the total cost of biopsies.

CONCLUSION

TDABC provides assessment of actual costs of performing breast imaging. Costs and contributors varied across screening, diagnostic and biopsy exams and modalities. Practices may consider this methodology in understanding costs and making changes directed at cost savings.

Interpreting contrast imaging to plan breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are more accurate than conventional imaging (CI) for breast cancer staging. How adding CEM and MRI to CI might change the surgical plan is understudied.

METHODS

Surgical plans (breast conserving surgery (BCS), wider BCS, BCS with diagnostic excision (>1BCS), mastectomy) were devised by mock-MDT (radiologist, surgeon and pathology reports) according to disease extent on CI, CI + CEM and CI + MRI. Differences in the mock-MDT's surgical plans following the addition of CEM or MRI were investigated. Using pre-defined criteria, the appropriateness of the modified plans was assessed by comparing estimated disease extent on imaging with final pathology. Surgery performed was recorded from patient records.

RESULTS

Contrast imaging modified mock-MDT plans for 20 of 61(32.8%) breasts. The addition of CEM changed the plan in 16/20 (80%) and MRI in 17/20 breasts (85%). Identical changes were proposed by both CEM and MRI in 13/20 (65%) breasts. The modified surgical plan based on CI + CEM was possibly appropriate for 6/16 (37.5%), and CI + MRI in 9/17, (52.9%) breasts. The surgery performed was concordant with the mock-MDT plan for all 10 patients where the plans could be compared (BCS 1, >1 BCS 2 and mastectomy 7).

CONCLUSION

Adding CEM or MRI to CI changed mock-MDT plans in up to one third of women, but not all were appropriate. Changing surgical plans following addition of contrast imaging to CI without biopsy confirmation could lead to over or under-treatment.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

Challenging Contrast-Enhanced Mammography-Guided Biopsies: Practical Approach Using Real-Time Multimodality Imaging and a Proposed Procedural Algorithm

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging functional breast imaging technique that entails the acquisition of dual-energy digital mammographic images after IV administration of iodine-based contrast material. CEM-guided biopsy technology was introduced in 2019 and approved by the U.S. FDA in 2020. This technology's availability enables direct sampling of suspicious enhancement seen only on or predominantly on recombined CEM images and addresses a major obstacle to the clinical implementation of CEM technology. The literature describing clinical indications and procedural techniques of CEM-guided biopsy is scarce. This article describes our initial experience in performing challenging CEM-guided biopsies and proposes a step-by-step procedural algorithm designed to proactively address anticipated technical difficulties and thereby increase the likelihood of achieving successful targeting.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography-guided Biopsy: Initial Trial and Experience

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate lesion visibility and radiologist confidence during contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy.

METHODS

Women with BI-RADS ≥4A enhancing breast lesions were prospectively recruited for 9-g vacuum-assisted CEM-guided biopsy. Breast density, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), lesion characteristics (enhancement and conspicuity), radiologist confidence (scale 1-5), and acquisition times were collected. Signal intensities in specimens were analyzed. Patient surveys were collected.

RESULTS

A cohort of 28 women aged 40-81 years (average 57) had 28 enhancing lesions (7/28, 25% malignant). Breast tissue was scattered (10/28, 36%) or heterogeneously dense (18/28, 64%) with minimal (12/28, 43%), mild (7/28, 25%), or moderate (9/28, 32%) BPE on CEM. Twelve non-mass enhancements, 11 masses, 3 architectural distortions, and 2 calcification groups demonstrated weak (12/28, 43%), moderate (14/28, 50%), or strong (2/28, 7%) enhancement. Specimen radiography demonstrated lesion enhancement in 27/28 (96%). Radiologists reported complete lesion removal on specimen radiography in 8/28 (29%). Average time from contrast injection to specimen radiography was 18 minutes (SD = 5) and, to post-procedure mammogram (PPM), 34 minutes (SD = 10). Contrast-enhanced mammography PPM was performed in 27/28 cases; 13/19 (68%) of incompletely removed lesions on specimen radiography showed residual enhancement; 6/19 (32%) did not. Across all time points, average confidence was 2.2 (SD = 1.2). Signal intensities of enhancing lesions were similar to iodine. Patients had an overall positive assessment.

CONCLUSION

Lesion enhancement persisted through PPM and was visible on low energy specimen radiography, with an average "confident" score. Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided breast biopsy is easily implemented clinically. Its availability will encourage adoption of CEM.

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.

Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in the Evaluation of Breast Microcalcifications: Controversies and Diagnostic Management

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in predicting breast lesion malignancy due to microcalcifications compared to lesions that present with other radiological findings. Three hundred and twenty-one patients with 377 breast lesions that underwent CESM and histological assessment were included. All the lesions were scored using a 4-point qualitative scale according to the degree of contrast enhancement at the CESM examination. The histological results were considered the gold standard. In the first analysis, enhancement degree scores of 2 and 3 were considered predictive of malignity. The sensitivity (SE) and positive predictive value (PPV) were significative lower for patients with lesions with microcalcifications without other radiological findings (SE = 53.3% vs. 82.2%, p-value < 0.001 and PPV = 84.2% vs. 95.2%, p-value = 0.049, respectively). On the contrary, the specificity (SP) and negative predictive value (NPV) were significative higher among lesions with microcalcifications without other radiological findings (SP = 95.8% vs. 84.2%, p-value = 0.026 and NPV = 82.9% vs. 55.2%, p-value < 0.001, respectively). In a second analysis, degree scores of 1, 2, and 3 were considered predictive of malignity. The SE (80.0% vs. 96.8%, p-value < 0.001) and PPV (70.6% vs. 88.3%, p-value: 0.005) were significantly lower among lesions with microcalcifications without other radiological findings, while the SP (85.9% vs. 50.9%, p-value < 0.001) was higher. The enhancement of microcalcifications has low sensitivity in predicting malignancy. However, in certain controversial cases, the absence of CESM enhancement due to its high negative predictive value can help to reduce the number of biopsies for benign lesions.

Costing analysis to introduce a contrast-enhanced mammography service to replace an existing breast MRI service for local staging of breast cancer

AIM

To assess the cost impact of switching from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) to contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for loco-regional staging of breast cancer from a public healthcare perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CE-MRI cost was obtained from the NHS reference cost. The CESM cost was calculated using a bottom-up approach including use of the machine, pump injector, contrast medium, image storage, and time allocation for staff reporting and cannulation. The cost of upgrading existing machines to CESM or purchasing new mammographic machines was obtained via national procurement. Other costs were obtained from local pharmacy, published unit cost data, or estimated based on surveys.

RESULTS

For large health boards in Scotland (≥500 cancers diagnosed per annum), the cost savings of switching from CE-MRI to CESM range from £64,069 to £81,570. For small health boards (<500 cancers diagnosed per annum), the cost savings of switching from CE-MRI to CESM range from £6,453 to £23,953. The cost savings are most sensitive to the number of tests conducted per year, and whether the existing mammography machine can be upgraded to CESM or not.

CONCLUSION

Switching from CE-MRI to CESM for loco-regional staging of breast cancer is likely to be cost saving for both large and small health boards in Scotland. Further research is urgently needed to confirm the non-inferiority of CESM to CE-MRI as a locoregional staging technique. The input data of this analysis can be updated when such results become available.

Patient perspectives on repeated contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance during neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The burden perceived by the patient of repeated imaging required for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) monitoring warrants attention due to the increased use of NAC and imaging.

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the experienced burden associated with repeated contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during NAC for breast cancer from the patient perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent were obtained. In this prospective study, CEM and MRI were performed on 38 patients with breast cancer before, during, and after NAC in a tertiary cancer center. The experienced burden was evaluated with a self-reported questionnaire addressing duration, comfort, anxiety, positioning, and intravenous contrast administration, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The participants were asked their preference between CEM or MRI. Statistical comparisons were performed and P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Most participants (n = 29, 76%) preferred CEM over MRI (P = 0.0008). CEM was associated with a significantly shorter duration (P < 0.001), greater overall comfort (P < 0.01), more comfortable positioning (P = 0.01), and lower anxiety (P = 0.03). Intravenous contrast administration perception revealed no significant difference. Only 4 (10%) participants preferred MRI over CEM, due to the absence of breast compression.

CONCLUSION

In the hypothetical scenario of equal diagnostic accuracy, most participants preferred CEM and compared CEM favorably to MRI in all investigated features at repeated imaging required for NAC response assessment. Our results indicate that repeated examinations with CEM is well tolerated and constitutes a patient-friendly alternative for NAC imaging monitoring in breast cancer.

Characterization of True and False Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper is to characterize true and false positive findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and correlate enhancement pattern and method of detection with pathology outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of diagnostic CEM performed from December 2015 through December 2019 for which biopsy was recommended. Background parenchymal enhancement, tissue density, finding features, pathologic/clinical outcomes, and method of detection were captured. CEM includes low-energy images (LE), similar to standard 2D mammography, and recombined images (RI) that show enhancement. 'MG-detected' findings were identified on mammography or LE. 'RI-detected' findings were identified due to enhancement on RI. The positive predictive value (PPV2) was calculated on a per-case and a per-finding level. Comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty CEM cases with 220 findings were evaluated with a case PPV2 of 58.1%. 32.3% (71/220) of lesions were RI-detected.  The PPV2 of RI-detected enhancement was 40.8% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 22.2%, 32%, and 51.4% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. The PPV2 of MG-detected enhancement was 73.5% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 50%, 54.1%, and 83.8% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. There were 100 false positives findings, 42 of which were RI-detected.

CONCLUSION

PPV2 of diagnostic CEM is within the range of other diagnostic breast imaging exams. However false positives remain a challenge, especially for RI-detected findings. Additional efforts to improve specificity of RI-detected findings are worthwhile.

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.

Quantitative Analysis of Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Risk Stratification of Benign Versus Malignant Disease and Molecular Subtype

OBJECTIVE

To assess quantitative enhancement of benign, high-risk, and malignant lesions and differences in molecular subtype and grade of malignant lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

This IRB-approved retrospective study included women who underwent CEM for diagnostic work-up of a breast lesion between 2014 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were women who had diagnostic work-up with CEM and had BI-RADS 1 or 2 with one year follow-up, BI-RADS 3 with tissue diagnosis or stability for 2 years, or BI-RADS 4 or 5 with tissue diagnosis. An enhancement ratio was calculated for all lesions. This was obtained by drawing a region of interest within the lesion and a second region of interest in the nonenhancing background tissue using a program developed with MATLAB. Descriptive statistics were evaluated using chi-squared tests, Fisher exact tests, and analysis of variance. A logistic regression model was used to predict cancer outcome using the enhancement ratio. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

There were 332 lesions in 210 women that met study criteria. Of the 332 lesions, 50.9% (169/332) were malignant, 5.7% (19/332) were high-risk, and 43.4% (144/332) were benign. Enhancement intensity of malignant lesions was higher than benign lesions. Odds ratio for quantitative enhancement of malignant lesions was 30.15 (P < 0.0001). Enhancement ratio above 1.49 had an 84.0% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity for malignancy. HER2-enriched breast cancers had significantly higher mean enhancement ratios (P = 0.0062).

CONCLUSION

Quantitative enhancement on CEM demonstrated that malignant breast lesions had higher mean enhancement intensity than benign lesions.

Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technical feasibility and first outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy at Hospital del Mar, a Spanish university hospital.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive women with a suspicious enhancing finding eligible for CEM-guided biopsy, who were prospectively enrolled in a pre-marketing clinical validation and feasibility study (October 2019 to September 2021). CEM-guided biopsy is a stereotactic-based procedure that, by using intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition, provides localisation of enhancing lesions. All the biopsies were performed using a vacuum-assisted device. We collected procedural characteristics (patient position and type of approach), and histopathological results. Feasibility endpoints included success (visualisation of the enhancing lesion, post-procedural biopsy changes and clip placement), procedural time, number of scout acquisitions and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 66 suspicious enhancing lesions (18.0% foci, 44.0% mass, 38.0% non-mass enhancement; median size 8.5 mm) in 64 patients (median age 59 years, mostly minimal [48.4%] or mild [32.8%] background parenchymal enhancement) were referred for CEM-guided biopsy in the study period. The success rate was 63/66 (95.4%). Amongst successful procedures, patients were most frequently seated (52/63, 82.5%) and the preferred approach was horizontal (48/63, 76.2%). Median total time per procedure was 15 min. Median number of acquisitions needed before targeting was 2 (range 1-4). Complications consisted of hematoma (17/63, 27%) and vasovagal reaction (2/63, 3.2%). At histology, the malignancy rate was 25/63 (39.7%).

CONCLUSION

In this first patient series, CEM-guided breast biopsy was feasible, with success and complication rates similar to those previously reported for magnetic resonance guidance.

KEY POINTS

• CEM may be used to guide biopsy of enhancing lesions through a stereotactic-based procedure combined with intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition. • In this first patient series (n = 64), the success rate of CEM-guided biopsy was above 95%, the only complications were hematoma (22.2%) and vasovagal reaction (3.2%), and median total time per procedure was 15 min. • CEM-guided biopsy is feasible and could potentially be a widely available biopsy technique for enhancing-only lesions.

Accuracy of Posttreatment Imaging for Evaluation of Residual in Breast Disease After Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can help downstage certain breast cancers prior to surgical resection. This study measured the accuracy of conventional mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for assessing breast tumor size in response to NET.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery after NET from 2013 to 2021 were identified. The maximal dimension of residual tumor on imaging was compared with the maximal dimension on final pathology. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (r_c) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r) were used to assess agreement.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients with invasive breast cancer underwent NET, posttreatment imaging, and surgery. Tumor size reported on posttreatment CEM correlated with size on final pathology to within 1 cm in n = 42 (58%) of patients, equivalent to the accuracy of MRI (n = 35, 58%). Size was accurately predicted by US in 54% and in 48% of MMG. Posttreatment imaging tumor size was moderately correlated with final tumor size on pathology CEM (r = 0.49; r_c = 0.38), MRI (r = 0.52; r_c = 0.45), and US (r = 0.41; r_c = 0.28). MMG was weakly correlated (r = 0.21; r_c = 0.16). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analysis; in those who received all four post-NET imaging, CEM and MRI again performed comparably, with r = 0.36 and 0.41, respectively, US (r = 0.43) and MMG (r = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with mammography and US, CEM and MRI had higher accuracy in estimating final tumor size for breast cancers treated with NET. Contrast-enhanced imaging is a helpful adjunct when response to preoperative therapy will impact clinical management.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a more accessible alternative to contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in breast imaging, but a summary comparison of published studies is lacking. Purpose To directly compare the performance of CEM and CE-MRI regarding sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value in detecting breast cancer, involving all publicly available studies in the English language. Materials and Methods Two readers extracted characteristics of studies investigating the comparative diagnostic performance of CEM and CE-MRI in detecting breast cancer. Studies published until April 2021 were eligible. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using bivariate random effects models. A Fagan nomogram was used to identify the maximum pretest probability at which posttest probabilities of a negative CEM or CE-MRI examination were in line with the 2% malignancy rate benchmark for downgrading a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 to a BI-RADS category 3 result. I ² statistics, Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias, and meta-regression were used. Results Seven studies investigating 1137 lesions (654 malignant, 483 benign) with an average cancer prevalence of 65.3% (range: 47.3%-82.2%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = .57). While the positive likelihood ratio was equal at a value of 3.1 for CE-MRI and 3.6 for CEM, the negative likelihood ratio of CE-MRI (0.04) was lower than that with CEM (0.12). CE-MRI had higher sensitivity for breast cancer than CEM (97% [95% CI: 86, 99] vs 91% [95% CI: 77, 97], respectively; P < .001) but lower specificity (69% [95% CI: 46, 85] vs 74% [95% CI: 52, 89]; P = .09). A Fagan nomogram demonstrated that the maximum pretest probability at which both tests could rule out breast cancer was 33% for CE-MRI and 14% for CEM. Furthermore, iodine concentration was positively associated with CEM sensitivity and negatively associated with its specificity (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced MRI had superior sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios with higher pretest probabilities to rule out malignancy compared with contrast-enhanced mammography. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann and Veldhuis in this issue.

Impact of preoperative staging with contrast-enhanced mammography for localized breast cancer management

OBJECTIVE

A precise evaluation of the disease extent is mandatory before surgery for early breast cancer (EBC). Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEDM) is a recent technique that may help define adequate surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients referred to a cancer center between November 2016 and July 2017 for biopsy-confirmed invasive EBC management. The primary objective was to evaluate the rate of surgical changes after incorporating the results of the preoperative staging examination, including CEDM.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients were screened for inclusion, and 132 patients were included, corresponding to 134 lesions. The first surgical plan was modified for 33 patients (25%), which represented 34 lesions. For 8 patients (6%), the surgery was cancelled in preference for neoadjuvant chemotherapy; for 16 patients (12.1%), the primary tumor procedure was enlarged; and for 23 patients (17.4%) the lymph node management was modified. Surgery was changed only due to the CEDM results for 24 patients (18.5%) and consisted of a more invasive procedure due to a more extended, multifocal or multicentric lesion than seen on the standard imaging. Anatomopathological surgery piece findings were well correlated with contrast-enhanced mammography results. Overall, there was no increase in the delay between the planned date of surgery and the effective surgical procedure (median 0 days).

CONCLUSION

CEDM added to preoperative staging helped define better surgical management without increasing delay in the surgical procedure.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

CEDM is a reliable technique that should be considered as part of preoperative staging for EBC.

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.

Deep learning analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography to determine histoprognostic factors of malignant breast tumours

Objective

To evaluate if a deep learning model can be used to characterise breast cancers on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).

Methods

This retrospective mono-centric study included biopsy-proven invasive cancers with an enhancement on CESM. CESM images include low-energy images (LE) comparable to digital mammography and dual-energy subtracted images (DES) showing tumour angiogenesis. For each lesion, histologic type, tumour grade, estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, HER-2 status, Ki-67 proliferation index, and the size of the invasive tumour were retrieved. The deep learning model used was a CheXNet-based model fine-tuned on CESM dataset. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated for the different models: images by images and then by majority voting combining all the incidences for one tumour.

Results

In total, 447 invasive breast cancers detected on CESM with pathological evidence, in 389 patients, which represented 2460 images analysed, were included. Concerning the ER, the deep learning model on the DES images had an AUC of 0.83 with the image-by-image analysis and of 0.85 for the majority voting. For the triple-negative analysis, a high AUC was observable for all models, in particularity for the model on LE images with an AUC of 0.90 for the image-by-image analysis and 0.91 for the majority voting. The AUC for the other histoprognostic factors was lower.

Conclusion

Deep learning analysis on CESM has the potential to determine histoprognostic tumours makers, notably estrogen receptor status, and triple-negative receptor status.

Key Points

• A deep learning model developed for chest radiography was adapted by fine-tuning to be used on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.

• The adapted models allowed to determine for invasive breast cancers the status of estrogen receptors and triple-negative receptors.

• Such models applied to contrast-enhanced spectral mammography could provide rapid prognostic and predictive information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-08538-4.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls.

METHODS

Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar's test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology.

RESULTS

Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5-48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7-64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2-97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1-78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity.

KEY POINTS

• The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ² = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Breast imaging: Beyond the detection

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease nowadays, including different biological subtypes with a variety of possible treatments, which aim to achieve the best outcome in terms of response to therapy and overall survival. In recent years breast imaging has evolved considerably, and the ultimate goal is to predict these strong phenotypic differences noninvasively. Indeed, breast cancer multiparametric studies can highlight not only qualitative imaging parameters, as the presence/absence of a likely malignant finding, but also quantitative parameters, suggesting clinical-pathological features through the evaluation of imaging biomarkers. A further step has been the introduction of artificial intelligence and in particular radiogenomics, that investigates the relationship between breast cancer imaging characteristics and tumor molecular, genomic and proliferation features. In this review, we discuss the main techniques currently in use for breast imaging, their respective fields of use and their technological and diagnostic innovations.