Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Reliability of Magseed® marking before neoadjuvant systemic therapy with subsequent contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with non-palpable breast cancer lesions after treatment: the MAGMA study

PURPOSE

To assess the reliability of excising residual breast cancer lesions after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) using a previously localized paramagnetic seed (Magseed®) and the subsequent use of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to evaluate response.

METHODS

Observational, prospective, multicenter study including adult women (> 18 years) with invasive breast carcinoma undergoing NAST between January 2022 and February 2023 with non-palpable tumor lesions at surgery. Radiologists marked tumors with Magseed® during biopsy before NAST, and surgeons excised tumors guided by the Sentimag® magnetometer. CESMs were performed before and after NAST to evaluate tumor response (Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors [RECIST]). We considered intraoperative, surgical, and CESM-related variables and histological response.

RESULTS

We analyzed 109 patients (median [IQR] age of 55.0 [46.0, 65.0] years). Magseed® was retrieved from breast tumors in all surgeries (100%; 95% CI 95.47-100.0%) with no displacement and was identified by radiology in 106 patients (97.24%), a median (IQR) of 176.5 (150.0, 216.3) days after marking. Most surgeries (94.49%) were conservative; they lasted a median (IQR) of 22.5 (14.75, 40.0) min (95% CI 23.59-30.11 min). Most dissected tumor margins (93.57%) were negative, and few patients (5.51%) needed reintervention. Magseed® was identified using CESM in all patients (100%); RECIST responses correlated with histopathological evaluations of dissected tumors using the Miller-Payne response grade (p < 0.0001) and residual lesion diameter (p < 0.0001). Also 69 patients (63.3%) answered a patient's satisfaction survey and 98.8% of them felt very satisfied with the entire procedure.

CONCLUSION

Long-term marking of breast cancer lesions with Magseed® is a reliable and feasible method in patients undergoing NAST and may be used with subsequent CESM.

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.

Magnetically guided surgery after primary systemic therapy for breast cancer: implications for enhanced axillary mapping

BACKGROUND

Superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles perform comparably to radioisotope ± blue dye for sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer, even when injected up to 8 weeks before surgery. Using superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles for sentinel lymph node detection after primary systemic therapy, and the maximum time frame of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle administration have not been investigated.

METHODS

This cohort study included cN0/1-to-ycN0 patients undergoing sentinel lymph node detection or targeted axillary dissection. All patients received superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles either before primary systemic therapy or before surgery, and radioisotope on the day of surgery.

RESULTS

For 113 patients analysed, superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles were injected a median of 3 (range 0-248) days before surgery, with a 97.4% detection rate compared with 91.2% for radioisotope (P = 0.057). Concordance for radioisotope was 97.1% and this was not affected by timing of superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle injection (Kendall's tau 0.027; P = 0.746). The median sentinel lymph node yield was 3 (interquartile range (i.q.r.) 2-3) for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles and 2 (i.q.r. 2-3) for radioisotope (P < 0.001). In targeted axillary dissection, detection was 100% for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles and 81.8% for radioisotope (P = 0.124). The index node was magnetic in 93.9% and radioactive in 66.7% (P = 0.007), an outcome that was not affected by any factors. For patients with metastases, superparamagnetic iron nanoparticle detection was 100% and radioisotope-based detection was 84.2% (P = 0.083), with superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles detecting more metastatic sentinel lymph nodes (median of 1 (i.q.r. 1-2) for superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles compared with a median of 1 (i.q.r. 0-1) for radioisotope; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Injection before primary systemic therapy is feasible and does not affect concordance with radioisotope. Superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles perform comparably to radioisotope, but detect more sentinel lymph nodes and have a higher rate of detection of metastatic sentinel lymph nodes.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

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

KEY POINTS

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