Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

Lesion attention guided neural network for contrast-enhanced mammography-based biomarker status prediction in breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Accurate identification of molecular biomarker statuses is crucial in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Studies have demonstrated that medical images could be utilized for non-invasive prediction of biomarker statues. The biomarker status-associated features extracted from medical images are essential in developing medical image-based non-invasive prediction models. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising imaging technique for breast cancer diagnosis. This study aims to develop a neural network-based method to extract biomarker-related image features from CEM images and evaluate the potential of CEM in non-invasive biomarker status prediction.

METHODS

An end-to-end learning convolutional neural network with the whole breast images as inputs was proposed to extract CEM features for biomarker status prediction in breast cancer. The network focused on lesion regions and flexibly extracted image features from lesion and peri‑tumor regions by employing supervised learning with a smooth L1-based consistency constraint. An image-level weakly supervised segmentation network based on Vision Transformer with cross attention to contrast images of breasts with lesions against the contralateral breast images was developed for automatic lesion segmentation. Finally, prediction models were developed following further selection of significant features and the implementation of random forest-based classification. Results were reported using the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

A dataset from 1203 breast cancer patients was utilized to develop and evaluate the proposed method. Compared to the method without lesion attention and with only lesion regions as inputs, the proposed method performed better at biomarker status prediction. Specifically, it achieved an AUC of 0.71 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.65, 0.77) for Ki-67 and 0.73 (95 % CI: 0.65, 0.80) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).

CONCLUSIONS

A lesion attention-guided neural network was proposed in this work to extract CEM image features for biomarker status prediction in breast cancer. The promising results demonstrated the potential of CEM in non-invasively predicting the biomarker statuses in breast cancer.

Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary medical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive modality for detecting breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), a relatively recent technology, represents another contrast-enhanced imaging technique that has the potential to serve as an alternative to breast MRI. Our main goal is to compare the diagnostic accuracy including assessment of sensitivity and specificity of these 2 contrast-enhanced breast imaging methods, CEM and MRI, in the diagnosis and characterization of breast lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our prospective study included patients who were clinically suspected of malignancy and/or had suspicious findings detected by mammography or ultrasound. A total of 116 patients were included, and both CEM and MRI examinations were performed on all patients. All CEM examinations were conducted at our institution, while 56.89% of all MRI examinations were carried out at external centers. While histopathological results were accessible for all malignant lesions, the final diagnosis for 80.5% of benign lesions was established through typical imaging findings and adequate follow-up.

RESULTS

This study encompassed a total of 219 lesions, with 125 out of 219 (57.07%) malignant lesions and 94 out of 219 (42.92%) benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity values were 98.40% and 81.91%, respectively, for CEM, and 100% and 75.33%, respectively, for MRI. Moreover, CEM showcased comparable performance to MRI in evaluating women with dense breasts.

CONCLUSION

CEM and MRI were compared for breast lesion diagnosis, with MRI showing higher sensitivity and CEM higher specificity; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

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.

CEM immediately after contrast-enhanced CT: a one-step staging of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique. We evaluated the diagnostic potential of CEM performed immediately after contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT).

METHODS

Fifty patients with breast cancer underwent first CE-CT and then CEM without additional contrast material injection. Two independent radiologists evaluated CEM images. The sensitivity of CEM for detecting index and additional malignant lesions was compared with that of mammography/ultrasonography by the McNemar test, using histopathology as a reference standard. Interobserver agreement for detection of malignant lesions, for classifying index tumors, and for evaluating index tumor size and extent was assessed using Cohen κ. Pearson correlation was used for correlating index tumor size/extent at CEM or mammography/ultrasonography with histopathology.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients, 30 (60%) had unifocal disease while 20 (40%) had multicentric or multifocal disease; 5 of 20 patients with multicentric disease (25%) had bilateral involvement, for a total of 78 malignant lesions, including 72 (92%) invasive ductal and 6 (8%) invasive lobular carcinomas. Sensitivity was 63/78 (81%, 95% confidence interval 70.27-88.82) for unenhanced breast imaging and 78/78 (100%, 95.38-100) for CEM (p < 0.001). The interobserver agreement for overall detection of malignant lesions, for classifying index tumor, and for evaluating index tumor size/extent were 0.94, 0.95, and 0.86 κ, respectively. For index tumor size/extent, correlation coefficients as compared with histological specimens were 0.50 for mammography/ultrasonography and 0.75 for CEM (p ≤ 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

CEM acquired immediately after CE-CT without injection of additional contrast material showed a good performance for local staging of breast cancer.

RELEVANCE STATEMENT

When the CEM suite is near to the CE-CT acquisition room, CEM acquired immediately after, without injection of additional contrast material, could represent a way for local staging of breast cancer to be explored in larger prospective studies.

KEY POINTS

• CEM represents a new accurate tool in the field of breast imaging. • An intravenous injection of iodine-based contrast material is required for breast gland evaluation. • CEM after CE-CT could provide a one-stop tool for breast cancer staging.

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.

Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: I. Iodine signal testing

The technique of dual-energy contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) visualizes iodine uptake in cancerous breast lesions following an intravenous injection of a contrast medium. The CEM image is generated by recombining two images acquired in rapid succession: a low energy image, with a mean energy below the iodine K-edge, and a higher energy image. The first part of this study examines the use of both commercially available and custom made phantoms to investigate iodine imaging under different imaging conditions, with the focus on quality control (QC) testing. Four CEM equipped systems were included in the study, with units from Fujifilm, GE Healthcare, Hologic and Siemens-Healthineers. The CEM parameters assessed in part I were: (1) image signal as a function of iodine concentration, measured in breast tissue simulating backgrounds of varying thickness and adipose/glandular compositions; (2) normal breast texture cancellation in homogeneous and structured backgrounds; (3) visibility of iodinated structures. For all four systems, a linear response to iodine concentration was found but the degree to which this was independent of background composition differed between the systems. Good cancellation of the glandular tissue inserts was found on all the units. Visibility scores of iodinated targets were similar between the four systems. Specialized phantoms are needed to fully evaluate important CEM performance markers, such as system response to iodine concentration and the ability of the system to cancel background texture. An extensive evaluation of the iodine signal imaging performance is recommended at the Commissioning stage for a new CEM device.

Breast Cancer in Dense Breasts: Detection Challenges and Supplemental Screening Opportunities

Dense breast tissue at mammography is associated with higher breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, which have prompted new considerations for breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. The authors review the definition and classification of breast density, density assessment methods, breast cancer risk, current legislation, and future efforts and summarize trials and key studies that have affected the existing guidelines for supplemental screening. Cases of breast cancer in dense breasts are presented, highlighting a variety of modalities and specific imaging findings that can aid in cancer detection and staging. Understanding the current state of breast cancer screening in patients with dense breasts and its challenges is important to shape future considerations for care. Shifting the paradigm of breast cancer detection toward early diagnosis for women with dense breasts may be the answer to reducing the number of deaths from this common disease. ©RSNA, 2023 Online supplemental material is available for this article. Quiz questions for this article are available through the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Yeh in this issue.

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.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: are kinetic patterns useful for differential diagnoses of enhanced lesions?

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic efficiency of the kinetic curves of enhanced lesions on contrast-en-hanced spectral mammography (CESM) and whether they were similar to those of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

METHODS

Two hundred and twelve patients with 222 enhanced lesions were included in this prospective study. Single-view craniocaudal of an affected breast was acquired at 3, 5, and 7 min after contrast media injection. The kinetic patterns of each lesion were evaluated and classified as elevated (type I), steady (type II), and depressed (type III). Statistical comparison used the chi-squared test, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Of 222 enhanced lesions, 140 were breast cancers, and 82 were benign lesions. The distribution of the kinetic curves for breast cancer was type I, 3.57%, type II, 35.71%, and type III, 60.72%. As for benign lesions, the distribution was type I, 43.90%, type II, 45.12%, and type III, 10.98%. The difference in the enhancement patterns between benign lesions and breast cancers was significant (P < 0.001). The likelihood of breast cancer related to a type I, II, and III curve was 12.20%, 57.47%, and 90.43%, respectively. For the enhancement intensity, the area under curve (AUC) of the ROC curves was 0.702 ± 0.036; for enhancement patterns, the AUC increased to 0.819 ± 0.030. Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.752 (P < 0.001) regarding the kinetic curves for CESM and MRI.

CONCLUSION

The kinetic patterns on CESM show promise in differentiating between benign lesions and breast cancers, with good agreement, when compared with MRI.

Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance

PURPOSE

Mammography (MG) is the standard imaging in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer or DCIS (PHBC), supplemented with ultrasound. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) has higher sensitivity than MG and US. We report the performance of CEM compared with MG ± US.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients undergoing their first surveillance CEM in an Australian hospital setting between June 2006 and October 2020. Cases where a patient was recalled for assessment were identified, recording radiology, pathology and treatment details. Blinded re-reading of recalled cases was performed to determine the contribution of contrast. Use of surveillance US across the board was assessed for the period.

RESULTS

73/1191 (6.1%) patients were recalled. 35 (48%) were true positives (TP), with 26 invasive cancers and 9 cases of DCIS, while 38 (52%) were false positive (FP) with a positive predictive value (PPV) 47.9%. 32/73 were recalled due to MG findings, while 41/73 were only recalled due to Contrast. 14/73 had 'minimal signs' with a lesion identifiable on MG with knowledge of the contrast finding, while 27/73 were visible only with contrast. 41% (17/41) recalled due to contrast were TP. Contrast-only TPs were found with low and high mammographic density (MD). Screening breast US reduced by 55% in the year after CEM was implemented.

CONCLUSION

Compared to MG, CEM as a single surveillance modality for those with PHBC has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, identifying additional malignant lesions that are clinically significant. Investigation of interval cancer and subsequent round outcomes is warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12613000684729.

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.

Value of contrast-enhanced mammography combined with the Kaiser score for clinical decision-making regarding tomosynthesis BI-RADS 4A lesions

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) combined with the Kaiser score (KS) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) BI-RADS 4A lesions to potentially reduce unnecessary breast biopsies.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated 106 patients with 109 DBT BI-RADS 4A lesions from June 2019 to June 2021. For the absence of enhancement on CEM, the lesions were downgraded to BI-RADS 3. For lesions with enhancement, the readers were asked to classify all enhancing lesions referring to the KS for breast MRI. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance. Two readers rated all cases and interreader agreement was assessed by Cohen's kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

There were ninety-five benign lesions and 14 malignant lesions. CEM combined with KS's accuracy, represented by the area under the curve (AUC), ranged between 0.880 and 0.906. The use of the KS improved the performance, with a significant difference relative to a single BI-RADS reading or US (p < 0.001). CEM with KS had higher specificity than CEM with BI-RADS or US (p < 0.001), without difference in sensitivity (p > 0.05). CEM combined with KS could have potentially obviated 72 (75.8%) to 78 (82.1%) unnecessary benign biopsies in 95 benign lesions previously DBT classified as BI-RADS 4A. The interreader agreement was substantial (kappa: 0.727) for KS.

CONCLUSIONS

CEM combined with KS may be used in DBT BI-RADS 4A lesions to substantially reduce unnecessary benign biopsies.

KEY POINTS

• CEM combined with the Kaiser scoring system shows high diagnostic performance for DBT BI-RADS 4A lesions. • The application of CEM combined with the Kaiser scoring system may avoid 75.8% to 82.1% of unnecessary benign breast biopsies. • CEM combined with the KS aids clinical decision-making in DBT BI-RADS 4A lesions.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Methods: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms “breast cancer”, “preoperative staging”, “contrast-enhanced mammography”, “contrast-enhanced spectral mammography”, “contrast enhanced digital mammography”, “contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging” “CEM”, “CESM”, “CEDM”, and “CE-MRI”. We selected only those papers comparing the clinical efficacy of CEM and CE-MRI. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. The pooled sensitivities and specificity of CEM and CE-MRI were computed using a random-effects model directly from the STATA “metaprop” command. The between-study statistical heterogeneity was tested (I²-statistics). Results: Nineteen studies were selected for this systematic review. Fifteen studies (1315 patients) were included in the metanalysis. Both CEM and CE-MRI detect breast lesions with a high sensitivity, without a significant difference in performance (97% and 96%, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the potential of CEM as a supplemental screening imaging modality, even for intermediate-risk women, including females with dense breasts and a history of breast cancer.

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.

Impact of contrast-enhanced mammography in surgical management of breast cancers for women with dense breasts: a dual-center, multi-disciplinary study in Asia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of pre-operative contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in breast cancer patients with dense breasts.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 232 histologically proven breast cancers in 200 women (mean age: 53.4 years ± 10.2) who underwent pre-surgical CEM imaging across two Asian institutions (Singapore and Taiwan). Majority (95.5%) of patients had dense breast tissue (BI-RADS category C or D). Surgical decision was recorded in a simulated blinded multi-disciplinary team setting on two separate scenarios: (i) pre-CEM setting with standard imaging, and clinical and histopathological results; and (ii) post-CEM setting with new imaging and corresponding histological findings from CEM. Alterations in surgical plan (if any) because of CEM imaging were recorded. Predictors CEM of patients who benefitted from surgical plan alterations were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

CEM resulted in altered surgical plans in 36 (18%) of 200 patients in this study. CEM discovered clinically significant larger tumor size or extent in 24 (12%) patients and additional tumors in 12 (6%) patients. CEM also detected additional benign/false-positive lesions in 13 (6.5%) of the 200 patients. Significant predictors of patients who benefitted from surgical alterations found on multivariate analysis were pre-CEM surgical decision for upfront breast conservation (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 1.9-32.1; p = 0.005), architectural distortion on mammograms (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.3-42.9; p = .022), and tumor size of ≥ 1.5 cm (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; p = .034).

CONCLUSION

CEM is an effective imaging technique for pre-surgical planning for Asian breast cancer patients with dense breasts.

KEY POINTS

• CEM significantly altered surgical plans in 18% (nearly 1 in 5) of this Asian study cohort with dense breasts. • Significant patient and imaging predictors for surgical plan alteration include (i) patients considered for upfront breast-conserving surgery; (ii) architectural distortion lesions; and (iii) tumor size of ≥ 1.5 cm. • Additional false-positive/benign lesions detected through CEM were uncommon, affecting only 6.5% of the study cohort.

Preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: Contrast-enhanced mammography versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. It is responsible for about 23% of cancer in females in both developed and developing countries. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) in preoperative evaluations of breast lesions.

METHODS

We searched for published literature in the English language in MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASETM via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Trip database. For literature published in other languages, we searched national databases (Magiran and SID), KoreaMed, and LILACS. Metadisc1.4 software was used for statistical analysisRESULTS:A total of 1225 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of CEM and CEMRI was 0.946 (95% CI, 0.931-0.958) and 0.935 (95% CI, 0.920-0.949), respectively. The pooled specificity of CEM and CEMRI was 0.783 (95% CI, 0.758-0.807) and 0.715 (95% CI, 0.688-0.741), respectively. The sensitivity of CEM was the most in the United States (97%) and the specificity of CEM was the most in Brazil (88%). MRI sensitivity was the most in USA and Egypt (99%) and China had the most MRI specificity (81%) in diagnosis of breast lesions.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced mammography, a combination of high energy image and low energy image, can well display breast lesions and has the diagnostic efficacy equivalent to MRI. Importantly, CEM imaging shows higher specificity, positive predictive value, and diagnostic conformance rate than MRI. Despite some drawbacks such as higher irradiation and iodine usage, CEM has such advantages as convenient and fast examination, strong applicability, and low costs; thus, it can be popularized as a useful tool in breast disease.

Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer

Breast radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists updated their previous recommendation/guidance at the 4th Hungarian Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in Kecskemét. A recommendation is hereby made that breast tumours should be screened, diagnosed and treated according to these guidelines. These professional guidelines include the latest technical developments and research findings, including the role of imaging methods in therapy and follow-up. It includes details on domestic development proposals and also addresses related areas (forensic medicine, media, regulations, reimbursement). The entire material has been agreed with the related medical disciplines.

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 of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Screening Multifocal and Multicentric Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients

Objectives

We aimed to determine the difference between contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in detecting multifocal and multicentric breast cancer (MMBC).

Methods

: This study was conducted among breast cancer patients between July 1, 2017, and May 30, 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CESM and CE-MRI in the diagnosis of MMBC were evaluated with pathological results as the gold standard.

Results

A total of 188 lesions were detected in 54 patients with MMBC, including 177 breast cancer and 11 benign lesions. Based on CESM and CE-MRI, 4 false-positive cases and 3 false-negative cases and 7 false-positive cases and 1 false-negative case, respectively, were found. The accuracy of CESM was higher than that of MRI (96.3% vs 95.7%), and the specificity was higher than that of MRI (63.6% vs 36.4%). There were no significant differences in the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the detection of MMBC between CESM and CE-MRI (p = 0.500; p = 0.250; p = 0.792).

Conclusion

CESM is an effective method for the detection of MMBC, which is consistent with the sensitivity and accuracy of CE-MRI.

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.

Patient preferences regarding use of contrast-enhanced imaging for breast cancer screening

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Our purpose is to understand patient preferences towards contrast-enhanced imaging such as CEM or MRI for breast cancer screening.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An anonymous survey was offered to all patients having screening mammography at a single academic institution from December 27 th 2019 to March 6 th 2020. Survey questions related to: (1) patients' background experiences (2) patients' concern for aspects of MRI and CEM measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) financial considerations.

RESULTS

75% (1011/1349) patients completed the survey. 53.0% reported dense breasts and of those, 47.6% had additional screening. 49.6% had experienced a callback, 29.0% had a benign biopsy, and 13.7% had prior CEM/MRI. 34.7% were satisfied with mammography for screening. A majority were neutral or not concerned with radiation exposure, contrast allergy, IV line placement, claustrophobia, and false positive exams. 54.7% were willing to pay at least $250-500 for screening MRI. Those reporting dense breasts were less satisfied with mammography for screening (p<0.001) and willing to pay more for MRI (p<0.001). If patients had prior CEM/MRI, there was less concern for an allergic reaction (p<0.001), IV placement (p=0.025), and claustrophobia (p=0.006). There was less concern for false positives if they had a prior benign biopsy (p=0.029) or prior CEM/MRI (p=0.005) and less concern for IV placement if they had dense breasts (p=0.007) or a previous callback (p=0.013).

CONCLUSION

The screening population may accept CEM or MRI as a screening exam despite its risks and cost, especially patients with dense breasts and patients who have had prior CEM/MRI.

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.

The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor’s system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor’s systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.

Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging of breast cancer: The pro CEM perspective

In women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, preoperative staging is required to assess disease extent, enabling us to decide on the most optimal treatment strategy. For locoregional staging, assessment of intramammary tumor extent and presence of axillary and perhaps also internal mammary lymph node metastases is required. Due to the similarity in the underlying principle, contrast-enhanced mammography is increasingly considered instead of breast MRI for this purpose. When considering the combination of CEM and US as a single appointment imaging strategy for preoperative staging of breast cancer, there is only limited room for an additional benefit of breast MRI. For tumor size measurements, equal performance of both CEM and MRI are observed. Sensitivity of both techniques for detecting breast cancer is comparable, meaning that both techniques are capable of detecting additional ipsilateral or contralateral tumor foci. However, specificity is in favor of CEM, meaning that there is a slightly lower chance of having false positive findings in preoperative staging of the breast. Axillary US can be performed during the same appointment as CEM, with equal performance and limitations as evaluation of the axilla on standard breast MRI examinations. Finally, there is no need to actively pursue the detection of IMLN metastases, meaning that additional MRI to do so is not required. This review provides a 'pro-CEM' perceptive on the arguments why breast MRI is hardly necessary when CEM in combination with US has been performed as a single appointment imaging strategy in breast cancer patients.

A Review of Breast Imaging for Timely Diagnosis of Disease

Breast cancer (BC) is the cancer with the highest incidence in women in the world. In this last period, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused in many cases a drastic reduction of routine breast imaging activity due to the combination of various factors. The survival of BC is directly proportional to the earliness of diagnosis, and especially during this period, it is at least fundamental to remember that a diagnostic delay of even just three months could affect BC outcomes. In this article we will review the state of the art of breast imaging, starting from morphological imaging, i.e., mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography, and their most recent evolutions; and ending with functional images, i.e., magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced mammography.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art

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

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries

Background

Mammographic focal asymmetry represents normal breast tissue, benign, or malignant lesions. Accurate characterization is important for better management. The study evaluates diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) for characterization of focal asymmetries seen in 2D mammography.

Results

The study was done prospectively on 38 females among 360 patients who underwent baseline sonomammographic assessment for diagnostic and screening purposes. Complementary ultrasound was performed only when a finding was detected in cases of screening mammograms. Focal asymmetries were evaluated according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon 2013. CEDM was performed and followed by ultrasound (US) guided core biopsy for solid lesions or aspiration for cystic lesions. CEDM processing resulted in recombined image showing enhancing abnormality. Low energy image and recombined image findings were analyzed blindly and classified into focus enhancement, mass enhancement, non-mass enhancement, and non-enhanced lesions. CEDM and sonomammography findings were compared regarding pathological probability and multiplicity. Histopathology was the reference standard.

Mass enhancement showed strong correlation with malignant pathology. Non-mass enhancement showed no correlation with particular pathology. All non-enhanced focal asymmetries were benign in pathology or normal tissue. Rim enhancement needed second look ultrasound evaluation. CEDM was superior to sonomammography with higher sensitivity (77.8%, 65.7% respectively), NPV (0.8, 0.6), accuracy (0.6, 0.2) but lower specificity (81.8% vs. 100%). Multiplicity detection by CEDM was 26.3% and by sonomammography was 10.5%.

Conclusion

CEDM is more accurate than sonomammography in determination of normal tissue, benign, or malignant lesions in cases of mammographic focal asymmetry. CEDM is more accurate in detection of multiplicity. Undesired biopsies were avoidable with proper management of suspicious and malignant lesions.

Contrast mammography in clinical practice: Current uses and potential diagnostic dilemmas

OBJECTIVE

This article will discuss the indications for Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) with a focus on imaging interpretation including diagnostic dilemmas and pitfalls which may be encountered in practice.

CONCLUSION

Understanding potential diagnostic dilemmas and pitfalls of CESM allows for enhanced interpretation. The clinical utilization of Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) has increased significantly over the last few years. CESM demonstrates comparable sensitivity and accuracy to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the evaluation of breast cancer but is less time consuming and less expensive. Because of this, CESM is now being used in lieu of MRI for many diagnostic indicators including the evaluation of abnormal mammographic findings, extent of disease, and response to neoadjuvant therapy. Additionally, ongoing research into the role of CESM in asymptomatic screening for breast cancer is evolving. As this technique becomes more popular, focusing on appropriate technique and interpretation is important. This article reviews the current and potential roles of CESM. It provides examples of CESM utilized for diagnostic indications while highlighting diagnostic dilemmas, pitfalls, and artifacts that may be encountered when interpreting CESM images.

Which clinical, radiological, histological, and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known breast cancers with Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)?

Background

CEDM has demonstrated a diagnostic performance similar to MRI and could have similar limitations in breast cancer (BC) detection.

Purpose

The aim of our study was to systematically analyze the characteristics of the lesions with the absence of enhancement with CEDMs, called false-negatives (FNs), in order to identify which clinical, radiological, histological and molecular parameters are associated with the absence of enhancement of known BCs with CEDMs, and which types of BC are most likely to cause FNs in CEDMs. We also tried to evaluate which parameters instead increased the probability of showing enhancement in the same context.

Materials and methods

Included in our study group were 348 women with 348 diagnosed BCs performing CEDM as preoperative staging. Two breast-imaging radiologists reviewed the CEDM exams. The absence of perceptible contrast enhancement at the index cancer site was indicative of an FN CEDM, whereas cases with appreciable enhancement were considered true positives (TPs). Dichotomic variables were analyzed with Fisher’s exact probability test or, when applicable, the chi-square test. Binary logistic regression was performed on variables shown to be significant by the univariate analysis in order to assess the relationship between predictors (independent variables) and TFNs (outcome).

Results

Enhancement was observed in 317 (91.1%) of the 348 BCs. From the 31 (8.9%) lesions which were FNs, we excluded 12 (38.7%) which showed an artifact generated by the post biopsy hematoma and 6 (19.4%) which were outside the CEDM field of vision. We thus obtained 13 (41.9%) BCs considered “True False Negatives” (TFNs), i.e. BCs which showed no enhancement despite being within the CEDM field of vision and failed to show post biopsy hematoma artifacts. We found that the TFNs frequently have a unifocal disease extension, diameter <10 mm, a lower number of luminal B HER2-subtypes, a higher number of DCIS, and an index lesion with microcalcifications.

Conclusions

The parameters we found to be associated with no enhancement of known BCs with CEDMs were: unifocal disease extension, DCIS histotype, lesion dimensions <10 mm, and index lesion with microcalcifications. The characteristics that instead increase the probability of showing enhancement were US mass, Luminal B HER2 negative molecular subtype, the presence of an invasive ductal component, and lesion dimensions ≥10 mm.

•

The variables associated with an increased risk of no enhancement were unifocal disease extension, non-classifiable molecular subtype, DCIS histotype, lesion dimensions <10 mm, index lesion represented by microcalcifications.

•

A greater probability of showing enhancement entailed the presence of an invasive ductal component, index lesion represented by ultrasound mass, Luminal B HER2 negative molecular subtype, lesion dimensions ≥10 mm, multifocal disease extension.

Low-Dose, Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study

Contrast‐enhanced MRI (CE‐MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE‐MRI.

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast‐enhanced mammography (L‐CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE‐MRI of the breast.

Study Type

Prospective, single center.

Population

Women with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L‐CEM or CE‐MRI. Eighty women were included.

Field Strength/Sequence

1.5 and 3T CE‐MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L‐CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype.

Assessment

Three, off‐site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI‐RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard.

Statistical Test

Lesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics.

Results

Included were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE‐MRI (92.5–94.6%; L‐CEM 79.6–91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L‐CEM 65.6–90.2%; CE‐MRI 83.6–93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L‐CEM 59.6–71.4%; CE‐MRI 63.0–76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L‐CEM 46.9–96.9%; CE‐MRI 37.5–53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L‐CEM 76.4–97.6%; CE‐MRI 73.3–77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L‐CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L‐CEM was as good as CE‐MRI (75.3–76.3% vs. 72.0–75.3%, P = 0.514).

Data Conclusion

L‐CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE‐MRI, L‐CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L‐CEM might help to reduce false‐positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE‐MRI

Level of Evidence

1

Technical Efficacy Stage

2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589–595.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review

In this paper we provide an overview of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and a review of the published literature in order to provide a picture of the current state of the evidence on the performance of CEM. Clinical research was fairly sparse following the demonstration of the technique in research subjects about 18 years ago, but the number of publications rapidly increased following commercialization 9 years ago, and even more so in the last 5 years. Initial studies compared CEM with mammography, and clearly showed that CEM could detect cancers not visible on mammography. More recent studies have primarily focused on comparing the performance of CEM with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected cohorts. These studies have almost uniformly shown CEM and MRI to have similar sensitivities, with sensitivity and accuracy showing more variability from study to study. With increasing clinical use, a large number of retrospective reviews of CEM have appeared, showing utility of CEM in the diagnostic clinical setting. Most recently, a small number of papers have been published looking at CEM for high-risk and dense breast screening, two potentially large applications of the technique, showing it to outperform mammography in both populations. CEM has clearly been shown to have clinical utility, but more prospective studies, including screening studies, are needed to further evaluate its performance, especially in comparison with MRI.

Screening Breast Ultrasound Using Handheld or Automated Technique in Women with Dense Breasts

In women with dense breasts (heterogeneously or extremely dense), adding screening ultrasound to mammography increases detection of node-negative invasive breast cancer. Similar incremental cancer detection rates averaging 2.1-2.7 per 1000 have been observed for physician- and technologist-performed handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and automated ultrasound (AUS). Adding screening ultrasound (US) for women with dense breasts significantly reduces interval cancer rates. Training is critical before interpreting examinations for both modalities, and a learning curve to achieve optimal performance has been observed. On average, about 3% of women will be recommended for biopsy on the prevalence round because of screening US, with a wide range of 2%-30% malignancy rates for suspicious findings seen only on US. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions identified only on screening HHUS can be safely followed at 1 year rather than 6 months. Computer-aided detection and diagnosis software can augment performance of AUS and HHUS; ongoing research on machine learning and deep learning algorithms will likely improve outcomes and workflow with screening US.

Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review

We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/vendor, radiation dose, low-/high-energy tube voltage; contrast molecule, concentration and dose; injection modality, ARs and acquisition delay; order of views; examination time. Of 120 retrieved articles, 84 were included from 22 countries (September 2003-January 2019), totalling 14012 patients. Design was prospective in 44/84 studies (52%); in 70/84 articles (83%), a General Electric unit with factory-set kVp was used. Per-view average glandular dose, reported in 12/84 studies (14%), ranged 0.43-2.65 mGy. Contrast type/concentration was reported in 79/84 studies (94%), with Iohexol 350 mgI/mL mostly used (25/79, 32%), dose and flow rate in 72/84 (86%), with 1.5 mL/kg dose at 3 mL/s in 62/72 studies (86%). Injection was described in 69/84 articles (82%), automated in 59/69 (85%), manual in 10/69 (15%) and flush in 35/84 (42%), with 10-30 mL dose in 19/35 (54%). An examination time < 10 min was reported in 65/84 studies (77%), 120 s acquisition delay in 65/84 (77%) and order of views in 42/84 (50%) studies, beginning with the craniocaudal view of the non-suspected breast in 7/42 (17%). Thirty ARs were reported by 14/84 (17%) studies (26 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe non-fatal) with a pooled rate of 0.82% (fixed-effect model). Only half of CESM studies were prospective; factory-set kVp, contrast 1.5 mL/kg at 3 mL/s and 120 s acquisition delay were mostly used; only 1 severe AR was reported. CESM protocol standardisation is advisable.