Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria

Contrast-enhanced mammography in the management of breast architectural distortions and avoidance of unnecessary biopsies

BACKGROUND

To assess contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the management of BI-RADS3 breast architectural distortions (AD) in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 328 women with 332 ADs detected on DBT between 2017 and 2021 and selected those classified as BI-RADS3 receiving CEM as problem-solving. In CEM recombined images, we evaluated AD's contrast enhancement (CE) according to its presence/absence, type, and size. AD with enhancement underwent imaging-guided biopsy while AD without enhancement follow-up or biopsy if detected in high/intermediate-risk women.

RESULTS

AD with enhancement were 174 (52.4%): 72 (41.4%) were malignant lesions, 102 (59.6%) false positive results: 28 (16%) B3 lesions, and 74 (42.5%) benign lesions. AD without enhancement were 158 (47.6%): 26 (16.5%) were subjected to biopsy (1 malignant and 25 benign) while the other 132 cases were sent to imaging follow-up, still negative after two years. CEM's sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and accuracy were 98.63%, 60.62%, 41.38%, 99.37%, and 68.98%. The AUC determined by ROC was 0.796 (95% CI, 0.749-0.844).

CONCLUSION

CEM has high sensitivity and NPV in evaluating BI-RADS3 AD and can be a complementary tool in assessing AD, avoiding unnecessary biopsies without compromising cancer detection.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

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

KEY POINTS

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

Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation: Is There an Association Between Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Imaging Features and Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer?

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the correlation between imaging features of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-institution study of patients who underwent CEM from December 2019 to August 2023. Each patient had at least one histologically proven invasive breast cancer with a core biopsy performed. Patients with a history of breast cancer treatment and lesions not entirely included in the CEM images were excluded. The images were interpreted using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR BI-RADS) lexicon for CEM, published in 2022. Different imaging features, including the presence of calcifications, architectural distortion, non-mass enhancement, mass morphology, internal enhancement pattern, the extent of enhancement, and lesion conspicuity, were analyzed. The molecular subtypes were studied as dichotomous variables, including luminal A, luminal B, HER2, and basal-like. The association between the imaging features and molecular subtypes was analyzed with a Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was assumed when the p-value was <0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients with 36 malignant lesions were included in this study. Sixteen lesions (44.4%) were luminal A, four lesions (11.1%) were luminal B, 10 lesions (27.8%) were HER2, and six (16.7%) were basal-like subtypes. The presence of calcifications was associated with the HER2 subtype (p=0.024). Rim-enhancement on recombined images was associated with a basal-like subtype (p=0.001). Heterogeneous enhancement on recombined images was associated with non-basal-like breast cancer (p=0.027). No statistically significant correlation was found between other analyzed CEM imaging features and molecular subtypes.

CONCLUSION

CEM imaging features, including the presence of calcifications and certain internal enhancement patterns, were correlated with distinguishing breast cancer molecular subtypes and thus may further expand the role of CEM.

Role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative detection of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: a comparison with low-energy image and magnetic resonance imaging

OBJECTIVES

To compare contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with low-energy image (LEI) alone and with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed 98 pure DCIS lesions in 96 patients who underwent CEM and MRI within 2 weeks preoperatively. The diagnostic performances of each imaging modality, lesion morphology, and extent were evaluated.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of CEM to DCIS was similar to that of MRI (92.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.77) and was significantly higher than that of LEI alone (76.5%, p = 0.002). The sensitivity of CEM to calcified DCIS (92.4%) was not significantly different from LEI alone (92.4%) and from MRI (93.9%, p = 1.00). However, CEM contributed to the simultaneous comparison of calcifications with enhancements. CEM had considerably higher sensitivity compared with LEI alone (93.8% vs. 43.8%, p < 0.001) and performed similarly to MRI (93.8%, p = 1.00) for noncalcified DCIS. All DCIS lesions were enhanced in MRI, whereas 94.9% (93/98) were enhanced in CEM. Non-mass enhancement was the most common presentation (CEM 63.4% and MRI 66.3%). The difference between the lesion size on each imaging modality and the histopathological size was smallest in MRI, followed by CEM, and largest in LEI.

CONCLUSION

CEM was more sensitive than LEI alone and comparable to MRI in DCIS diagnosis. The enhanced morphology of DCIS in CEM was consistent with that in MRI. CEM was superior to LEI alone in size measurement of DCIS.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study investigated the value of CEM in the diagnosis and evaluation of DCIS, aiming to offer a reference for the selection of examination methods for DCIS and contribute to the early diagnosis and precise treatment of DCIS.

KEY POINTS

• DCIS is an important indication for breast surgery. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for DCIS treatment and prognosis. • CEM overcomes the deficiency of mammography in noncalcified DCIS diagnosis, exhibiting similar sensitivity to MRI; and CEM contributes to the comparison of calcification and enhancement of calcified DCIS, thereby outperforming MRI. • CEM is superior to LEI alone and slightly inferior to MRI in the size evaluation of DCIS.

Develop and Validate a Nomogram Combining Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Deep Learning with Clinical-Pathological Features to Predict Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Patients with ER-Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a nomogram that combines contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) deep learning with clinical-pathological features to predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) response (either low Miller Payne (MP-L) grades 1-2 or high MP (MP-H) grades 3-5) in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 265 breast cancer patients were randomly allocated into training and test sets (used for models training and testing, respectively) at a 4:1 ratio. Deep learning models, based on the pre-trained ResNet34 model and initially fine-tuned for identifying breast cancer, were trained using low-energy and subtracted CESM images. The predicted results served as deep learning features for the deep learning-based model. Clinical-pathological features, including age, progesterone receptor (PR) status, estrogen receptor (ER) status, Ki67 expression levels, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, were used for the clinical model. All these features contributed to the nomogram. Feature selection was performed through univariate analysis. Logistic regression models were developed and chosen using a stepwise selection method. The deep learning-based and clinical models, along with the nomogram, were evaluated using precision-recall curves, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, specificity, recall, accuracy, negative predictive value, positive predictive value (PPV), balanced accuracy, F1-score, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

RESULTS

The nomogram demonstrated considerable predictive ability, with higher area under the ROC curve (0.95, P < 0.05), accuracy (0.94), specificity (0.98), PPV (0.89), and precision (0.89) compared to the deep learning-based and clinical models. In DCA, the nomogram showed substantial clinical value in assisting breast cancer treatment decisions, exhibiting a higher net benefit than the other models.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram, integrating CESM deep learning with clinical-pathological features, proved valuable for predicting NAC response in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. Nomogram outperformed deep learning-based and clinical models.

Contrast-enhanced mammography BI-RADS: a case-based approach to radiology reporting

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively recent diagnostic technique increasingly being utilized in clinical practice. Until recently, there was a lack of standardized reporting for CEM findings. However, this has changed with the publication of a supplement in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). A comprehensive understanding of CEM is essential for further enhancing its role in both screening and managing patients with breast malignancies. CEM can also be beneficial for problem-solving, improving the management of uncertain breast findings. Practitioners in this field should become more cognizant of how and when to employ this technique and interpret the various CEM findings. This paper aims to outline the key findings in the updated version of the BI-RADS specifically dedicated to CEM. Additionally, it will present some clinical cases commonly encountered in clinical practice.Critical relevance statement Standardized reporting and a thorough understanding of CEM findings are pivotal for advancing the role of CEM in screening and managing breast cancer patients. This standardization contributes significantly to integrating CEM as an essential component of daily clinical practice.Key points • A complete knowledge and understanding of the findings outlined in the new BI-RADS CEM are necessary for accurate reporting.• BI-RADS CEM supplement is intuitive and practical to use.• Standardization of the CEM findings enables more accurate patient management.

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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.

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.

Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry

Part II of this study describes constancy tests for artefacts and image uniformity, exposure time, and phantom-based dosimetry; these are applied to four mammography systems equipped with contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) capability. Artefacts were tested using a breast phantom that simulated breast shape and thickness change at the breast edge. Image uniformity was assessed using rectangular poly(methyl)methacrylate PMMA plates at phantom thicknesses of 20, 40 and 60 mm, for the low energy (LE), high energy (HE) images and the recombined CEM image. Uniformity of signal and of the signal to noise ratio was quantified. To estimate CEM exposure times, breast simulating blocks were imaged in automatic exposure mode. The resulting x-ray technique factors were then set manually and exposure time for LE and HE images and total CEM acquisition time was measured with a multimeter. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was assessed as a function of simulated breast thickness using three different phantom compositions: (i) glandular and adipose breast tissue simulating blocks combined to give glandularity values that were typical of those in a screening population, as thickness was changed (ii) PMMA sheets combined with polyethylene blocks (iii) PMMA sheets with spacers. Image uniformity was superior for LE compared to HE images. Two systems did not generate recombined images for the uniformity test when the detector was fully covered. Acquisition time for a CEM image pair for a 60 mm thick breast equivalent phantom ranged from 3.4 to 10.3 s. Phantom composition did not have a strong influence on MGD, with differences generally smaller than 10%. MGD for the HE images was lower than for the LE images, by a factor of between 1.3 and 4.0, depending on system and simulated breast thickness. When combined with the iodine signal assessment in part I, these tests provide a comprehensive assessment of CEM system imaging performance.

New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

Population-based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false-positive rates, particularly in high-risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population-based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk-adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material-enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated-breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast-agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk-adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk-adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk-adapted breast cancer screening approach. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

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.

Intra- and peritumoral radiomics for predicting malignant BiRADS category 4 breast lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: a multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To construct and test a nomogram based on intra- and peritumoral radiomics and clinical factors for predicting malignant BiRADS 4 lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.

METHODS

A total of 884 patients with BiRADS 4 lesions were enrolled from two centers. For each lesion, five ROIs were defined using the intratumoral region (ITR), peritumoral regions (PTRs) of 5 and 10 mm around the tumor, and ITR plus PTRs of 5 mm and 10 mm. Five radiomics signatures were established by LASSO after selecting features. A nomogram was built using selected signatures and clinical factors by multivariable logistic regression analysis. The performance of the nomogram was assessed with the AUC, decision curve analysis, and calibration curves, and also compared with the radiomics model, clinical model, and radiologists.

RESULTS

The nomogram built by three radiomics signatures (constructed from ITR, 5 mm PTR, and ITR + 10 mm PTR) and two clinical factors (age and BiRADS category) showed powerful predictive ability in internal and external test sets with AUCs of 0.907 and 0.904, respectively. The calibration curves, decision curve analysis, showed favorable predictive performance of the nomogram. In addition, radiologists improved the diagnostic performance with the help of nomogram.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram established via intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics features and clinical risk factors had the best performance in distinguishing benign and malignant BiRADS 4 lesions, which could help radiologists improve diagnostic capabilities.

KEY POINTS

• Radiomics features from peritumoral regions in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images may provide valuable information for the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast imaging reporting and data system category 4 breast lesions. • The nomogram incorporated intra- and peritumoral radiomics features and clinical variables have good application prospects in assisting clinical decision-makers.

Preoperative staging by multimodal imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer: Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared to conventional mammography, ultrasound, and MRI

PURPOSE

To compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with mammography (Mx), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) regarding breast cancer detection rate and preoperative local staging.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective observational, single-centre study included 128 female patients (mean age 55.8 ± 11.5 years) with a newly diagnosed malignant breast tumour during routine US and Mx were prospectively enrolled. CESM and MRI examinations were performed within the study. Analysis included interreader agreement, tumour type and grade distribution, detection rates (DR), imaging morphology, contrast-enhancement and was performed by two independent readers blinded to patient history and histopathological diagnosis. Assessment of local disease extent was compared between modalities via Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-ten tumours were classified as NST (85.9%), 4 as ILC (3.1%) and 10 as DCIS (7.8%). DR was highest for MRI (128/128, 100.0%), followed by US (124/128, 96.9%) and CESM (123/128, 96.1%) and lowest for conventional Mx (106/128, 82.8%) (p = 0.0002). Higher breast density did not negatively affect DR of US, CESM or MRI. Local tumour extent measurements based on CESM (Bland-Altman bias 6.6, standard deviation 30.2) showed comparable estimation results to MRI, surpassing Mx (23.4/43.7) and US (35.4/40.5). Even though detection of multifocality and multicentricity was highest for CESM and MRI (p < 0.0001), second-look rates, i.e., targeted US examinations after MRI or CESM, were significantly lower for CESM (10.2% of cases) compared to MRI (16.2%) with a significantly higher true positive rate for CESM (72.0%) vs. MRI (42.5%).

CONCLUSION

CESM is a viable alternative to MRI for lesion detection and local staging in newly diagnosed malignant breast cancer and provides higher specificity in regard to second-look examinations.

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.

Diagnostic Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Performed Immediately Prior to Same-Day Biopsy: An Analysis of Index Lesion Enhancement Compared to Histopathology and Follow-up in Patients With Suspicious Ultrasound Findings

Objective

To measure the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for the index lesion when it is performed the same day prior to biopsy in patients with suspicious findings at US.

Methods

This IRB-approved retrospective study compared radiologist original reports of the presence or absence of index lesion enhancement on CEM to biopsy results and follow-up. The most suspicious lesion or the larger of equally suspicious lesions recommended for biopsy by US after a diagnostic workup including mammography was considered the index lesion. CEM exams were performed the same day, immediately prior to the scheduled biopsy, as requested by the radiologist recommending the biopsy. Numeric variables were summarized with means and standard deviations, or medians and the minimum and maximum, where appropriate.

Results

Biopsy demonstrated cancer in 64.7% (200/309) of index lesions. Of these, 197/200 demonstrated enhancement for a sensitivity of 98.5% (95% CI: 95.7%-99.7%) (197/200) and the negative predictive value of CEM for non-enhancing index lesions was 95.1% (58/61; 95% CI: 86.1%-98.4%). The three false negative exams were two grade 1 ER+ HER2- invasive ductal cancers that were 6 mm and 7 mm in size, and a 3-mm grade 2 ductal carcinoma in situ in a complex cystic and solid mass. False positive exams made up 20.6% (51/248) of the positive exams.

Conclusion

Diagnostic CEM showed high sensitivity and specificity for cancer in lesions with suspicious US findings. CEM may reduce the need for some biopsies, and negative CEM may support a true negative biopsy result.

A Score to Predict the Malignancy of a Breast Lesion Based on Different Contrast Enhancement Patterns in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography

Background: To create a predictive score of malignancy of a breast lesion based on the main contrast enhancement features ascertained by contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Methods: In this single-centre prospective study, patients with suspicious breast lesions (BIRADS > 3) were enrolled between January 2013 and February 2022. All participants underwent CESM prior to breast biopsy, and eventually surgery. A radiologist with 20 years’ experience in breast imaging evaluated the presence or absence of enhancement and the following enhancement descriptors: intensity, pattern, margin, and ground glass. A score of 0 or 1 was given for each descriptor, depending on whether the enhancement characteristic was predictive of benignity or malignancy (both in situ and invasive). Then, an overall enhancement score ranging from 0 to 4 was obtained. The histological results were considered the gold standard in the evaluation of the relationship between enhancement patterns and malignancy. Results: A total of 321 women (median age: 51 years; range: 22−83) with 377 suspicious breast lesions were evaluated. Two hundred forty-nine lesions (66%) have malignant histological results (217 invasive and 32 in situ). Considering an overall enhancement score ≥ 2 as predictive of malignancy, we obtain an overall sensitivity of 92.4%; specificity of 89.8%; positive predictive value of 94.7%; and negative predictive value of 85.8%. Conclusions: Our proposed predictive score on the enhancement descriptors of CESM to predict the malignancy of a breast lesion shows excellent results and can help in early breast cancer diagnosis and in avoiding unnecessary biopsies.

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

Background

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

Purpose

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

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

Identifying factors that may influence the classification performance of radiomics models using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images

Background

Radiomics plays an important role in the field of oncology. Few studies have focused on the identification of factors that may influence the classification performance of radiomics models. The goal of this study was to use contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images to identify factors that may potentially influence the performance of radiomics models in diagnosing breast lesions.

Methods

A total of 157 women with 161 breast lesions were included. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and the random forest (RF) algorithm were employed to construct radiomics models. The classification result for each lesion was obtained by using 100 rounds of five-fold cross-validation. The image features interpreted by the radiologists were used in the exploratory factor analyses. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the association between the image features and misclassification. Additional exploratory analyses were performed to examine the findings.

Results

Among the lesions misclassified by both LASSO and RF ≥ 20% of the iterations in the cross-validation and those misclassified by both algorithms ≤5% of the iterations, univariate analysis showed that larger lesion size and the presence of rim artifacts and/or ripple artifacts were associated with more misclassifications among benign lesions, and smaller lesion size was associated with more misclassifications among malignant lesions (all p <  0.050). Multivariate analysis showed that smaller lesion size (odds ratio [OR] = 0.699, p = 0.002) and the presence of air trapping artifacts (OR = 35.568, p = 0.025) were factors that may lead to misclassification among malignant lesions. Additional exploratory analyses showed that benign lesions with rim artifacts and small malignant lesions (< 20 mm) with air trapping artifacts were misclassified by approximately 50% more in rate compared with benign and malignant lesions without these factors.

Conclusions

Lesion size and artifacts in CEM images may affect the diagnostic performance of radiomics models. The classification results for lesions presenting with certain factors may be less reliable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40644-022-00460-8.

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

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

Categorized contrast enhanced mammography dataset for diagnostic and artificial intelligence research

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a relatively recent imaging modality with increased diagnostic accuracy compared to digital mammography (DM). New deep learning (DL) models were developed that have accuracies equal to that of an average radiologist. However, most studies trained the DL models on DM images as no datasets exist for CESM images. We aim to resolve this limitation by releasing a Categorized Digital Database for Low energy and Subtracted Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography images (CDD-CESM) to evaluate decision support systems. The dataset includes 2006 images, with an average resolution of 2355 × 1315, consisting of 310 mass images, 48 architectural distortion images, 222 asymmetry images, 238 calcifications images, 334 mass enhancement images, 184 non-mass enhancement images, 159 postoperative images, 8 post neoadjuvant chemotherapy images, and 751 normal images, with 248 images having more than one finding. This is the first dataset to incorporate data selection, segmentation annotation, medical reports, and pathological diagnosis for all cases. Moreover, we propose and evaluate a DL-based technique to automatically segment abnormal findings in images.

Measurement(s)	Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Spectral Mammography
Technology Type(s)	digital curation
Sample Characteristic - Organism	Homo sapiens • Breast
Sample Characteristic - Location	Egypt

Association between quantitative and qualitative image features of contrast-enhanced mammography and molecular subtypes of breast cancer

Background

The molecular subtype of breast cancer is one of the most important factors affecting patient prognosis. The study aimed to analyze the association between quantitative and qualitative features of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images and breast cancer molecular subtypes.

Methods

This retrospective double-center study included women who underwent CEM between November 2017 and April 2020. Each patient had at least 1 malignant lesion confirmed by pathology. The CEM images were evaluated by 2 radiologists to obtain quantitative and qualitative image features. The molecular subtypes were studied as dichotomous outcomes, including luminal versus non-luminal, human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-enriched versus non-HER2-enriched, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) versus non-TNBC subtypes. The association between the image features and molecular subtypes was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provided.

Results

A total of 151 patients with 160 malignant lesions were included in the study. For quantitative features, a higher standard deviation of lesion density was associated with non-luminal (OR =0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.96, P=0.004) and HER2-enriched breast cancers (OR =1.16, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.28, P=0.006). The relative degree of enhancement (RDE) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were not associated with molecular subtypes. However, a higher CNR/lesion size (OR =1.06, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.12, P=0.012) was associated with luminal subtype cancers, and a higher RDE/lesion size (OR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.00, P=0.035) or a higher CNR/lesion size (OR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00, P=0.038) was associated with non-TNBCs. For qualitative features, the presence of calcification was associated with HER2-enriched breast cancers (OR =2.91, 95% CI: 1.10 to 7.67, P=0.031). The presence of architectural distortion was associated with luminal cancer (OR =14.50, 95% CI: 1.91 to 110.14, P=0.010) and non-TNBC (OR =0.05, 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.43, P=0.022). Non-mass enhancement (OR =2.78, 95% CI: 1.08 to 7.14, P=0.033) was associated with HER2-enriched breast cancers. An association remained after adjustments for age, breast thickness, and breast density (all adjusted P<0.050).

Conclusions

The quantitative and qualitative imaging features of CEM could contribute to distinguishing breast cancer molecular subtypes.

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.

Cancer Conspicuity on Low-energy Images of Contrast-enhanced Mammography Compared With 2D Mammography

OBJECTIVE

Low-energy (LE) images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) have been shown to be noninferior to digital mammography. However, our experience is that LE images are superior to 2D mammography. Our purpose was to compare cancer appearance on LE to 2D images.

METHODS

In this IRB-approved retrospective study, seven breast radiologists evaluated 40 biopsy-proven cancer cases on craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) LE images and recent 2D images for cancer visibility, confidence in margins, and conspicuity of findings using a Likert scale. Objective measurements were performed using contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) estimated from regions of interest placed on tumor and background parenchyma. Reader agreement was evaluated using Fleiss kappa. Per-reader comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon test and overall comparisons used three-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Low-energy images showed improved performance for visibility (CC LE 4.0 vs 2D 3.5, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.7 vs 2D 3.5, P = 0.01), confidence in margins (CC LE 3.2 vs 2D 2.8, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.1 vs 2D 2.9, P < 0.008), and conspicuity compared to tissue density compared to 2D mammography (CC LE 3.6 vs 2D 3.2, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.5 vs 2D 3.2, P < 0.001). The average CNR was significantly higher for LE than for digital mammography (CC 2.1 vs 3.2, P < 0.001 and MLO 2.1 vs 3.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that cancers may be better visualized on the LE CEM images compared with the 2D digital mammogram.

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%.

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODOLOGY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS OF PRACTICE

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

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: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature

Purpose of Review

To provide an update on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) regarding current technique and interpretation, the performance of this modality versus conventional breast imaging modalities (mammography, ultrasound, and MRI), existing clinical applications, potential challenges, and pitfalls.

Recent Findings

Multiple studies have shown that the low-energy, non-contrast-enhanced images obtained when performing CEM are non-inferior to full-field digital mammography with the added benefit of recombined post-contrast images, which have been shown to provide comparable information compared to MRI without sacrificing sensitivity and negative predictive values. While CEMs' usefulness for further diagnostic characterization of indeterminate breast findings is apparent, additional studies have provided strong evidence of potential roles in screening intermediate to high-risk populations, evaluation of disease extent, and monitoring response to therapy, particularly in patients in whom MRI is either unavailable or contraindicated. Others have shown that some patients prefer CEM over MRI given the ease of performance and patient comfort. Additionally, some health systems may find significantly reduced costs compared to MRI. Currently, CEM is hindered by the limited availability of CEM-guided tissue sampling and issues of intravenous contrast administration. However, commercially available CEM-guided biopsy systems are on the horizon, and small changes in practice workflow can be quickly adopted. As of now, MRI remains a mainstay of high-risk screening, evaluation of the extent of disease, and monitoring response to therapy, but smaller studies have suggested that CEM may be equivalent to MRI for these indications, and larger confirmatory studies are needed.

Summary

CEM is an emerging problem-solving breast imaging modality that provides complementary information to conventional imaging modalities and may potentially be used in place of MRI for specific indications and/or patient populations.

Prediction of Underestimation Using Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Patients Diagnosed as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ on Preoperative Core Biopsy

BACKGROUND

To assess the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the prediction of DCIS underestimation in comparison with mammography, breast US, and breast MRI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients diagnosed with DCIS on preoperative core biopsy. Visibility, lesion type, and extent on each imaging modality, CESM gray values (CGV) were evaluated. Pathologic features of core biopsy and surgery were recorded. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used for univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to find independent predictors for DCIS underestimation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 113 lesions in 108 patients were analyzed (50 pure DCIS; 63 underestimated DCIS). Visibility on mammography, breast US, CESM, and breast MRI were 44%, 76%, 58%, and 80% for pure DCIS, and 73%, 81%, 86%, and 92% for underestimated DCIS. Tumor extents on surgical pathology of pure and underestimated DCIS were 1.11 ± 1.35 cm and 2.61 ± 2.09 cm. On multivariate analysis, nuclear grade and suspected invasion on core biopsy, visibility on mammography, and extent on breast MRI were independent factors for the model 1, whereas nuclear grade on core biopsy, extent on CESM, and mean CGV on MLO-recombined image were independent factors for the model 2. Area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.843 for model 1 including breast MRI, whereas AUC was 0.823 for model 2 including CESM, which didn't show a significant difference (P = .968).

CONCLUSION

For detecting underestimated DCIS, CESM was superior to mammography and breast US, and comparable to breast MRI.

Incorporating the clinical and radiomics features of contrast-enhanced mammography to classify breast lesions: a retrospective study

Background

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising breast imaging technique. A limited number of studies have focused on the radiomics analysis of CEM. We intended to explore whether a model constructed with both clinical and radiomics features of CEM can better classify benign and malignant breast lesions.

Methods

This retrospective, double-center study included women who underwent CEM between August 2017 and February 2020. The data from Center 1 were used as training set and the data from Center 2 were used as external testing set (training: testing =2:1). Models were constructed with the clinical, radiomics, and clinical + radiomics features of CEM. The clinical features included patient age and clinical image features interpreted by the radiologists. The radiomics features were extracted from high-energy (HE), low-energy (LE), and dual-energy subtraction (DES) images of CEM. The Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson correlation and Boruta's approach were used to select the radiomics features. Random Forest (RF) and logistic regression were used to establish the models. For the testing set, the areas under the curve (AUCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed to evaluate the performance of the models. For the training set, the mean AUCs were obtained by performing internal validation for 100 iterations and then compared by the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

A total of 226 women (mean age: 47.4±10.1 years) with 226 pathologically proven breast lesions (101 benign; 125 malignant) were included. For the external testing set, the AUCs were 0.964 (95% CI: 0.918-1.000) for the combined model, 0.947 (95% CI: 0.891-0.997) for the radiomics model, and 0.882 (95% CI: 0.803-0.962) for the clinical model. In the internal validation process, the combined model achieved a mean AUC of 0.934±0.030, which was significantly higher than those of the radiomics (mean AUC =0.921±0.031, adjusted P<0.050) and clinical models (mean AUC =0.907±0.036; adjusted P<0.050).

Conclusions

Incorporating both clinical and radiomics features of CEM may achieve better classification results for breast lesions.

Opportunities in cancer imaging: risk-adapted breast imaging in screening

In the UK, women between 50-70 years are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening irrespective of their likelihood of developing breast cancer. The only risk adaption is for women with >30% lifetime risk who are offered annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography, and annual mammography for some moderate-risk women. Using questionnaires, breast density, and polygenic risk scores, it is possible to stratify the population into the lowest 20% risk, who will develop <4% of cancers and the top 4%, who will develop 18% of cancers. Mammography is a good screening test but has low sensitivity of 60% in the 9% of women with the highest category of breast density (BIRADS D) who have a 2.5- to fourfold breast cancer risk. There is evidence that adding ultrasound to the screening mammogram can increase the cancer detection rate and reduce advanced stage interval and next round cancers. Similarly, alternative tests such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CESM) or abbreviated MRI (ABB-MRI) are much more effective in detecting cancer in women with dense breasts. Scintimammography has been shown to be a viable alternative for dense breasts or for follow-up in those with a personal history of breast cancer and scarring as result of treatment. For supplemental screening to be worthwhile in these women, new technologies need to reduce the number of stage II cancers and be cost effective when tested in large scale trials. This article reviews the evidence for supplemental imaging and examines whether a risk-stratified approach is feasible.

Current Status of Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Comprehensive Review

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

CONCLUSION

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

Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Assessment of Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Background: Evaluating the tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is key to planning further therapy of breast cancer. Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of low-energy and subtraction contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images in the detection of complete response (CR) for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer. Methods: A total of 63 female patients were qualified for our retrospective analysis. Low-energy and subtraction CESM images just before the beginning of NAC and as a follow-up examination 2 weeks before the end of chemotherapy were compared with one another and assessed for compliance with the postoperative histopathological examination (HP). The response to preoperative chemotherapy was evaluated based on the RECIST 1.1 criteria (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Results: Low-energy images tend to overestimate residual lesions (6.28 mm) and subtraction images tend to underestimate them (2.75 mm). The sensitivity of low-energy images in forecasting CR amounted to 33.33%, while the specificity was 92.86%. In the case of subtraction CESM, the sensitivity amounted to 85.71% and the specificity to 71.42%. Conclusions: CESM is characterized by high sensitivity in the assessment of CR after NAC. The use of only morphological assessment is insufficient. CESM correlates well with the size of residual lesions on histopathological examination but tends to underestimate the dimensions.

Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know

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

Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) demonstrates a potential role in personalized screening models, in particular for women at increased risk and women with dense breasts. In this study, volumetric breast density (VBD) measured in CEM images was compared with VBD obtained from digital mammography (DM) or tomosynthesis (DBT) images. A total of 150 women who underwent CEM between March 2019 and December 2020, having at least a DM/DBT study performed before/after CEM, were included. Low-energy CEM (LE-CEM) and DM/DBT images were processed with automatic software to obtain the VBD. VBDs from the paired datasets were compared by Wilcoxon tests. A multivariate regression model was applied to analyze the relationship between VBD differences and multiple independent variables certainly or potentially affecting VBD. Median VBD was comparable for LE-CEM and DM/DBT (12.73% vs. 12.39%), not evidencing any statistically significant difference (p = 0.5855). VBD differences between LE-CEM and DM were associated with significant differences of glandular volume, breast thickness, compression force and pressure, contact area, and nipple-to-posterior-edge distance, i.e., variables reflecting differences in breast positioning (coefficient of determination 0.6023; multiple correlation coefficient 0.7761). Volumetric breast density was obtained from low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and was not significantly different from volumetric breast density measured from standard mammograms.

Radiomic Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Different Image Types: Classification of Breast Lesions

Objective: A limited number of studies have focused on the radiomic analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). We aimed to construct several radiomics-based models of CEM for classifying benign and malignant breast lesions.

Materials and Methods: The retrospective, double-center study included women who underwent CEM between November 2013 and February 2020. Radiomic analysis was performed using high-energy (HE), low-energy (LE), and dual-energy subtraction (DES) images from CEM. Datasets were randomly divided into the training and testing sets at a ratio of 7:3. The maximum relevance minimum redundancy (mRMR) method and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression were used to select the radiomic features and construct the best classification models. The performances of the models were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Leave-group-out cross-validation (LGOCV) for 100 rounds was performed to obtain the mean AUCs, which were compared by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test.

Results: A total of 192 women with 226 breast lesions (101 benign; 125 malignant) were enrolled. The median age was 48 years (range, 22–70 years). For the classification of breast lesions, the AUCs of the best models were 0.931 (95% CI: 0.873–0.989) for HE, 0.897 (95% CI: 0.807–0.981) for LE, 0.882 (95% CI: 0.825–0.987) for DES images and 0.960 (95% CI: 0.910–0.998) for all of the CEM images in the testing set. According to LGOCV, the models constructed with the HE images and all of the CEM images showed the highest mean AUCs for the training (0.931 and 0.938, respectively; P < 0.05 for both) and testing sets (0.892 and 0.889, respectively; P = 0.55 for both), which were significantly higher than those of the two models constructed with the LE and DES images in the training (0.912 and 0.899, respectively; all P < 0.05) and testing sets (0.866 and 0.862, respectively; all P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Radiomic analysis of CEM images was valuable for classifying benign and malignant breast lesions. The use of HE images or all three types of CEM images can achieve the best performance.

Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence Analysis with Textural Metrics Extracted by Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Breast Lesions Classification

The aim of the study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of textural features extracted by dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images, by carrying out univariate and multivariate statistical analyses including artificial intelligence approaches. In total, 80 patients with known breast lesion were enrolled in this prospective study according to regulations issued by the local Institutional Review Board. All patients underwent dual-energy CEM examination in both craniocaudally (CC) and double acquisition of mediolateral oblique (MLO) projections (early and late). The reference standard was pathology from a surgical specimen for malignant lesions and pathology from a surgical specimen or fine needle aspiration cytology, core or Tru-Cut needle biopsy, and vacuum assisted breast biopsy for benign lesions. In total, 104 samples of 80 patients were analyzed. Furthermore, 48 textural parameters were extracted by manually segmenting regions of interest. Univariate and multivariate approaches were performed: non-parametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test; receiver operating characteristic (ROC), linear classifier (LDA), decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), artificial neural network (NNET), and support vector machine (SVM) were utilized. A balancing approach and feature selection methods were used. The univariate analysis showed low accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) for all considered features. Instead, in the multivariate textural analysis, the best performance considering the CC view (accuracy (ACC) = 0.75; AUC = 0.82) was reached with a DT trained with leave-one-out cross-variation (LOOCV) and balanced data (with adaptive synthetic (ADASYN) function) and a subset of three robust textural features (MAD, VARIANCE, and LRLGE). The best performance (ACC = 0.77; AUC = 0.83) considering the early-MLO view was reached with a NNET trained with LOOCV and balanced data (with ADASYN function) and a subset of ten robust features (MEAN, MAD, RANGE, IQR, VARIANCE, CORRELATION, RLV, COARSNESS, BUSYNESS, and STRENGTH). The best performance (ACC = 0.73; AUC = 0.82) considering the late-MLO view was reached with a NNET trained with LOOCV and balanced data (with ADASYN function) and a subset of eleven robust features (MODE, MEDIAN, RANGE, RLN, LRLGE, RLV, LZLGE, GLV_GLSZM, ZSV, COARSNESS, and BUSYNESS). Multivariate analyses using pattern recognition approaches, considering 144 textural features extracted from all three mammographic projections (CC, early MLO, and late MLO), optimized by adaptive synthetic sampling and feature selection operations obtained the best results (ACC = 0.87; AUC = 0.90) and showed the best performance in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions.

Radiomic Feature Reduction Approach to Predict Breast Cancer by Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Images

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is an advanced instrument for breast care that is still operator dependent. The aim of this paper is the proposal of an automated system able to discriminate benign and malignant breast lesions based on radiomic analysis. We selected a set of 58 regions of interest (ROIs) extracted from 53 patients referred to Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari (Italy) for the breast cancer screening phase between March 2017 and June 2018. We extracted 464 features of different kinds, such as points and corners of interest, textural and statistical features from both the original ROIs and the ones obtained by a Haar decomposition and a gradient image implementation. The features data had a large dimension that can affect the process and accuracy of cancer classification. Therefore, a classification scheme for dimension reduction was needed. Specifically, a principal component analysis (PCA) dimension reduction technique that includes the calculation of variance proportion for eigenvector selection was used. For the classification method, we trained three different classifiers, that is a random forest, a naïve Bayes and a logistic regression, on each sub-set of principal components (PC) selected by a sequential forward algorithm. Moreover, we focused on the starting features that contributed most to the calculation of the related PCs, which returned the best classification models. The method obtained with the aid of the random forest classifier resulted in the best prediction of benign/malignant ROIs with median values for sensitivity and specificity of 88.37% and 100%, respectively, by using only three PCs. The features that had shown the greatest contribution to the definition of the same were almost all extracted from the LE images. Our system could represent a valid support tool for radiologists for interpreting CESM images.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: How Does It Work?

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

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art

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

Training Radiologists to Interpret Contrast-enhanced Mammography: Toward a Standardized Lexicon

OBJECTIVE

Using terms adapted from the BI-RADS Mammography and MRI lexicons, we trained radiologists to interpret contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and assessed reliability of their description and assessment.

METHODS

A 60-minute presentation on CEM and terminology was reviewed independently by 21 breast imaging radiologist observers. For 21 CEM exams with 31 marked findings, observers recorded background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) (minimal, mild, moderate, marked), lesion type (oval/round or irregular mass, or non-mass enhancement), intensity of enhancement (none, weak, medium, strong), enhancement quality (none, homogeneous, heterogeneous, rim), and BI-RADS assessment category (2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5). "Expert" consensus of 3 other radiologists experienced in CEM was developed. Kappa statistic was used to assess agreement between radiologists and expert consensus, and between radiologists themselves, on imaging feature categories and final assessments. Reproducibility of specific feature descriptors was assessed as fraction of consensus-concordant responses.

RESULTS

Radiologists demonstrated moderate agreement for BPE, (mean kappa, 0.43; range, 0.05-0.69), and lowest reproducibility for "minimal." Agreement was substantial for lesion type (mean kappa, 0.70; range, 0.47-0.93), moderate for intensity of enhancement (mean kappa, 0.57; range, 0.44-0.76), and moderate for enhancement quality (mean kappa, 0.59; range, 0.20-0.78). Agreement on final assessment was fair (mean kappa, 0.26; range, 0.09-0.44), with BI-RADS category 3 the least reproducible. Decision to biopsy (BI-RADS 2-3 vs 4-5) showed moderate agreement with consensus (mean kappa, 0.54; range, -0.06-0.87).

CONCLUSION

With minimal training, agreement for description of CEM findings by breast imaging radiologists was comparable to other BI-RADS lexicons.