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

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Abbreviated Breast MRI: State of the Art

Abbreviated MRI is an umbrella term, defined as a focused MRI examination tailored to answer a single specific clinical question. For abbreviated breast MRI, this question is: "Is there evidence of breast cancer?" Abbreviated MRI of the breast makes maximum use of the fact that the kinetics of breast cancers and of benign tissue differ most in the very early postcontrast phase; therefore, abbreviated breast MRI focuses on this period. The different published approaches to abbreviated MRI include the following three subtypes: (a) short protocols, consisting of a precontrast and either a single postcontrast acquisition (first postcontrast subtracted [FAST]) or a time-resolved series of postcontrast acquisitions with lower spatial resolution (ultrafast [UF]), obtained during the early postcontrast phase immediately after contrast agent injection; (b) abridged protocols, consisting of FAST or UF acquisitions plus selected additional pulse sequences; and (c) noncontrast protocols, where diffusion-weighted imaging replaces the contrast information. Abbreviated MRI was proposed to increase tolerability of and access to breast MRI as a screening tool. But its widening application now includes follow-up after breast cancer and even diagnostic assessment. This review defines the three subtypes of abbreviated MRI, highlighting the differences between the protocols and their clinical implications and summarizing the respective evidence on diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility.

Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.

Results of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Screening in Patients at High Risk for Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening MRI as an adjunct to mammography is recommended by the ACS for patients with a lifetime risk for breast cancer > 20%. While the benefits are clear, MRI screening is associated with an increase in false-positive results. The purpose of this study was to analyze our institutional database of high-risk patients and assess the uptake of screening MRI examinations and the results of those screenings.

METHODS

Our institutional review board-approved High-Risk Breast Cancer Database was queried for patients enrolled from January 2017 to January 2023 who were at high risk for breast cancer in a comparative analysis between those who were screened versus not screened with MRIs. Variables of interest included risk factor, background, MRI screening uptake, and frequency and results of image-guided breast biopsies.

RESULTS

A total of 254 of 1106 high-risk patients (23%) had MRI screening. Forty-six of 852 (5.3%) patients in the non-MRI-screened cohort and nine of 254 (3.5%) patients in the MRI-screened cohort were diagnosed with a malignant lesion after image-guided biopsy (p = 0.6). There was no significant difference between MRI and non-MRI guided biopsies in detecting breast cancer. All malignant lesions were T1 or in situ disease. The 254 patients in the MRI-screened group underwent 185 biopsies. Fifty-seven percent of MRI-guided biopsies yielded benign results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the addition of MRI screening in our high-risk cohort did not produce a significant number of additional cancer diagnoses, patients monitored in our high-risk cohort who developed breast cancer were diagnosed at very early stages of disease, underscoring the benefit of participation in the program.

Comparative Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography, Abbreviated Breast MRI, and Standard Breast MRI for Breast Cancer Screening

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and abbreviated breast MRI (ABMRI) are emerging alternatives to standard MRI for supplemental breast cancer screening. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of CEM, ABMRI, and standard MRI. Materials and Methods This single-institution, prospective, blinded reader study included female participants referred for breast MRI from January 2018 to June 2021. CEM was performed within 14 days of standard MRI; ABMRI was produced from standard MRI images. Two readers independently interpreted each CEM and ABMRI after a washout period. Examination-level performance metrics calculated were recall rate, cancer detection, and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations and sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation. Bootstrap and permutation tests were used to calculate 95% CIs and compare modalities. Results Evaluated were 492 paired CEM and ABMRI interpretations from 246 participants (median age, 51 years; IQR, 43-61 years). On 49 MRI scans with lesions recommended for biopsy, nine lesions showed malignant pathology. No differences in ABMRI and standard MRI performance were identified. Compared with standard MRI, CEM demonstrated significantly lower recall rate (14.0% vs 22.8%; difference, -8.7%; 95% CI: -14.0, -3.5), lower false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations (65.0 vs 162.6; difference, -97.6; 95% CI: -146.3, -50.8), and higher specificity (87.8% vs 80.2%; difference, 7.6%; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.1). Compared with standard MRI, CEM had significantly lower cancer detection rate (22.4 vs 36.6; difference, -14.2; 95% CI: -28.5, -2.0) and sensitivity (61.1% vs 100%; difference, -38.9%; 95% CI: -66.7, -12.5). The performance differences between CEM and ABMRI were similar to those observed between CEM and standard MRI. Conclusion ABMRI had comparable performance to standard MRI and may support more efficient MRI screening. CEM had lower recall and higher specificity compared with standard MRI or ABMRI, offset by lower cancer detection rate and sensitivity compared with standard MRI. These trade-offs warrant further consideration of patient population characteristics before widespread screening with CEM. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03517813 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.

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

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

Contrast-enhanced mammography in the assessment of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment

PURPOSE

To investigate the utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) as an alternative to breast MRI for the evaluation of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment (NAT).

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled consecutive women undergoing NAT for breast cancer from July 2017-July 2019. Breast MRI and CEM exams performed after completion of NAT were read independently by two breast radiologists. Residual disease and lesion size on MRI and CEM recombined (RI) and low-energy images (LEI) were compared. Histopathology was considered the reference standard. Statistical analysis was performed using McNemar's and Leisenring's tests. Multiple comparison adjustment was made using Bonferroni procedure. Lesion sizes were correlated using Kendall's tau coefficient.

RESULTS

There were 110 participants with 115 breast cancers. Residual disease (invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ) was detected in 83/115 (72%) lesions on pathology, 71/115 (62%) on MRI, 55/115 (48%) on CEM RI, and 75/115 (65%) on CEM LEI. When using multiple comparison adjustment, no significant differences were detected between MRI combined with CEM LEI and CEM RI combined with CEM LEI, in terms of accuracy (MRI: 77%, CEM: 72%; p ≥ 0.99), sensitivity (MRI: 88%, CEM: 81%; p ≥ 0.99), specificity (MRI: 47%, CEM: 50%; p ≥ 0.99), PPV (MRI: 81%, CEM: 81%; p ≥ 0.99), or NPV (MRI: 60%, CEM: 50%; p ≥ 0.99). Size correlation between pathology and both MRI combined with CEM LEI and CEM RI combined with CEM LEI was moderate: τ = 0. 36 vs 0.33 (p ≥ 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced mammography is an acceptable alternative to breast MRI for the detection of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment.

Abbreviated Breast MRI Utilization: A Survey of the Society of Breast Imaging

OBJECTIVE

To survey Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) membership on their use of abbreviated breast MRI to understand variability in practice patterns.

METHODS

A survey was developed by the SBI Patient Care and Delivery committee for distribution to SBI membership in July and August 2021. Eighteen questions queried practice demographics and then abbreviated breast MRI practices regarding initial adoption, scheduling and finances, MRI protocols, and interpretations. Comparisons between responses were made by practice demographics.

RESULTS

There were 321 respondents (response rate: 15.3%), of whom 25% (81/321) currently offer and 26% (84/321) plan to offer abbreviated breast MRI. Practices in the South (37/107, 35%) and Midwest (22/70, 31%) were more likely to offer abbreviated MRI (P = 0.005). Practices adopted many strategies to raise awareness, most directed at referring providers. The mean charge to patients was $414, and only 6% of practices offer financial support. The median time slot for studies is 20 minutes, with only 15% of practices using block scheduling of consecutive breast MRIs. Regarding MRI protocols, 64% (37/58) of respondents included only a single first-pass post-contrast sequence, and 90% (52/58) included T2-weighted sequences. Patient eligibility was highly varied, and a majority of respondents (37/58, 64%) do not provide any recommendations for screening intervals in non-high-risk women.

CONCLUSION

Abbreviated breast MRI utilization is growing rapidly, and practices are applying a variety of strategies to facilitate adoption. Although there is notable variability in patient eligibility, follow-up intervals, and costs, there is some agreement regarding abbreviated breast MRI protocols.

Implementation of Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) is being rapidly adopted to harness the high sensitivity of screening MRI while addressing issues related to access, cost, and workflow. The successful implementation of an ABI-MRI program requires collaboration across administrative, operational, financial, technical, and clinical providers. Institutions must be thoughtful in defining AB-MRI patient eligibility and providing recommendations for screening intervals, as existing practices are heterogeneous. Similarly, there is no universally accepted AB-MRI protocol, though guiding principles should harmonize abbreviated and full protocols while being mindful of scan duration and table time. The interpretation of AB-MRI will be a new experience for many radiologists and may require a phased rollout as well as a careful audit of performance metrics over time to ensure benchmark metrics are achieved. AB-MRI finances, which are driven by patient self-payment, will require buy-in from hospital administration with the recognition that downstream revenues will be needed to support initial costs. Finally, successful startup of an AB-MRI program requires active engagement with the larger community of patients and referring providers. As AB-MRI becomes more widely accepted and available, best practices and community standards will continue to evolve to ensure high quality patient care.