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

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.

XGBoost Enhances the Performance of SAFE: A Novel Microwave Imaging System for Early Detection of Malignant Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Breast cancer is a significant global health concern, and early detection is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Mammography is widely used but has limitations, particularly for younger women with denser breasts. These include reduced sensitivity, false positives, and radiation risks. This highlights the need for alternative screening methods. In this study, we assess the performance of SAFE (Scan and Find Early), a novel microwave imaging device, in detecting breast cancer in a larger patient cohort. Unlike previous studies that predominantly relied on cross-validation, this study employs a more reliable, independent evaluation methodology to enhance generalizability.

METHODS

We developed an XGBoost model to classify breast cancer cases into positive (malignant) and negative (benign or healthy) groups. The model was analyzed with respect to key factors such as breast size, density, age, tumor size, and histopathological findings. This approach provides a better understanding of how these factors influence the model's performance, using an independent evaluation methodology for increased reliability.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate that SAFE exhibits high sensitivity, particularly in dense breasts (91%) and younger patients (83%), suggesting its potential as a supplemental screening tool. Additionally, the system shows high detection accuracy for both small (<2 cm) and larger lesions, proving effective in early cancer detection.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reinforces the potential of SAFE to complement existing screening methods, particularly for patients with dense breasts, where mammography's sensitivity is reduced. The promising results warrant further research to solidify SAFE's clinical application as an alternative screening tool for breast cancer detection.

Diagnostic Efficacy of Five Different Imaging Modalities in the Assessment of Women Recalled at Breast Screening-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There are variations in the assessment pathways for women recalled at screening, and the imaging assessment pathway with the best diagnostic outcome is poorly understood. This paper examines the efficacy of five imaging modalities for the assessment of screen-recalled breast lesions. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) strategy was employed to identify studies that assessed the efficacy of imaging modalities in the assessment of lesions recalled at screening from the following eight databases: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, PubMed, CINAHL, and Global Health. Search terms included "Breast assessment" AND "Diagnostic Workup" OR "Mammography" AND "Digital Breast tomosynthesis" AND "contrast enhanced mammography and Magnetic Resonance imaging" AND "breast ultrasound". Studies that examined the performance of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), handheld ultrasound (HHUS), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in screen-recalled lesions were reviewed. Meta-analyses of these studies were conducted using the MetaDisc 2.0 software package. Results: Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and examined between one and three imaging modalities. Pooled results of each imaging modality demonstrated that CEM has the highest sensitivity (95; 95% CI: 90-97) followed by MRI (93; 95% CI: 88-96), DBT (91; 95% CI: 87-94), HHUS (90; 95% CI: 86-93), and DM (85; 95% CI: 78-90). The DBT demonstrated the highest specificity (85; 95% CI: 75-91) followed by DM (77; 95% CI: 66-85), CEM (73; 95% CI: 63-81), MRI (69; 95% CI: 55-81), and HHUS (65; 95% CI: 46-80). Conclusions: The CEM, MRI, DBT, and HHUS demonstrate excellent performance in correctly identifying and classifying cancer lesions referred for diagnostic work-up, but HHUS, MRI, and CEM have a more limited ability to discriminate benign lesions than DBT and DM.

Background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: associations with breast density and patient's characteristics

PURPOSE

To evaluate if background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), graded according to the 2022 CEM-dedicated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon, is associated with breast density, menopausal status, and age.

METHODS

This bicentric retrospective analysis included CEM examinations performed for the work-up of suspicious mammographic findings. Three readers independently and blindly evaluated BPE on recombined CEM images and breast density on low-energy CEM images. Inter-reader reliability was estimated using Fleiss κ. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed, dichotomising breast density and BPE as low (a/b BI-RADS categories, minimal/mild BPE) and high (c/d BI-RADS categories, moderate/marked BPE).

RESULTS

A total of 200 women (median age 56.8 years, interquartile range 50.5-65.6, 140/200 in menopause) were included. Breast density was classified as a in 27/200 patients (13.5%), as b in 110/200 (55.0%), as c in 52/200 (26.0%), and as d in 11/200 (5.5%), with moderate inter-reader reliability (κ = 0.536; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.482-0.590). BPE was minimal in 95/200 patients (47.5%), mild in 64/200 (32.0%), moderate in 25/200 (12.5%), marked in 16/200 (8.0%), with substantial inter-reader reliability (κ = 0.634; 95% CI 0.581-0.686). At multivariable logistic regression, premenopausal status and breast density were significant positive predictors of high BPE, with adjusted odds ratios of 6.120 (95% CI 1.847-20.281, p = 0.003) and 2.416 (95% CI 1.095-5.332, p = 0.029) respectively.

CONCLUSION

BPE on CEM is associated with well-established breast cancer risk factors, being higher in women with higher breast density and premenopausal status.

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.

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

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

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.

The performance of contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in local preoperative staging of invasive lobular breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast MRI is considered the best modality for preoperative staging of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). However, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) shows comparable diagnostic performance to MRI, but evidence of CEM's accuracy in women diagnosed with ILC is scant. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate CEM and MRI accuracy in preoperative staging of ILC.

METHODS

ILC cases diagnosed between 2013 and 2021 were collected. For both modalities, tumour diameter was extracted from the reports. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess discrepancies between size measurements according to imaging and histopathological findings. CEM and MRI's ability to detect multifocal/contralateral cancer was expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs). Pairwise comparison of women undergoing both CEM and MRI was not performed.

RESULTS

305 ILC-cases fulfilled preset inclusion criteria. Mean age was 63.7 years. Preoperative staging was performed using MRI or CEM in 266 (87.2%) and 77 (25.2%) cases, respectively. MRI and CEM overestimated tumour size by 1.5 and 2.1 mm, respectively. Sensitivity to detect multifocal disease was higher for MRI than for CEM (86% versus 78%), but specificity was lower for MRI (79% versus 92%). For detection of contralateral breast cancer, sensitivity for MRI was 96% versus 88% for CEM, and specificity was 92% and 99%, respectively. For both indications, DOR was higher for CEM, but differences were non-significant (p = 0.56 and p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

CEM and MRI overestimate ILC size with comparable systematic and random errors. MRI's higher sensitivity for detection of multifocal/contralateral cancers is accompanied by lower specificity, but discriminative ability for both modalities was non-significant.

Imaging of breast cancer-beyond the basics

Imaging of breast cancer is the backbone of breast cancer screening, diagnosis, preoperative/treatment assessment and follow-up. The main modalities are mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. New emerging technologies have also enabled each modality to improve on their weaknesses. Imaging-guided biopsies have allowed for accurate diagnosis of breast cancer, with low complication rates. The purpose of this article is to review the common modalities for breast cancer imaging in current practice with emphasis on the strengths and potential weaknesses, discuss the selection of the best imaging modality for the specific clinical question or patient population, and explore new technologies / future directions of breast cancer imaging.