Improving the Diagnostic Accuracy of Breast BI-RADS 4 Microcalcification-Only Lesions Using Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Assessing the malignancy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: the role of contrast enhanced mammography

PURPOSE

To assess the role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in predicting the malignancy of breast calcifications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with suspicious calcifications (BIRADS 4) who underwent CEM and stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) at our institution. We assessed the sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEM in predicting malignancy of microcalcifications with a 95% confidence interval; we performed an overall analysis and a subgroup analysis stratified into group A-low risk (BIRADS 4a) and group B-medium/high risk (BIRADS 4b-4c). We then evaluated the correlation between enhancement and tumour proliferation index (Ki-67) for all malignant lesions.

RESULTS

Data from 182 patients with 184 lesions were collected. Overall the SE of CEM in predicting the malignancy of microcalcifications was 0.70, SP was 0.85, the PPV was 0.82, the NPV was 0.76 and AUC was 0.78. SE in group A was 0.89, SP was 0.89, PPV was 0.57, NPV was 0.98 and AUC was 0.75. SE in group B was 0.68, SP was 0.80, PPV was 0.87, NPV was 0.57 and AUC was 0.75. Among malignant microcalcifications that showed enhancement (N = 52), 61.5% had Ki-67 ≥ 20% and 38.5% had low Ki-67 values. Among the lesions that did not show enhancement (N = 22), 90.9% had Ki-67 < 20% and 9.1% showed high Ki-67 values 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of enhancement can be used as an indicative parameter for the absence of disease in cases of low-suspicious microcalcifications, but not in intermediate-high suspicious ones for which biopsy remains mandatory and can be used to distinguish indolent lesions from more aggressive neoplasms, with consequent reduction of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Clinical and Imaging Characteristics of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and MRI to Distinguish Microinvasive Carcinoma from Ductal Carcinoma In situ

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCISM) is more similar to that of small invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) than to pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It is particularly important to accurately distinguish between DCISM and DCIS. The present study aims to compare the clinical and imaging characteristics of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between DCISM and pure DCIS, and to identify predictive factors of microinvasive carcinoma, which may contribute to a comprehensive understanding of DCISM in clinical diagnosis and support surveillance strategies, such as surgery, radiation, and other treatment decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-seven female patients diagnosed with DCIS were included in the study from May 2019 to August 2023. Patients were further divided into two groups based on pathological diagnosis: DCIS and DCISM. Clinical and imaging characteristics of these two groups were analyzed statistically. The independent clinical risk factors were selected using multivariate logistic regression and used to establish the logistic model [Logit(P)]. The diagnostic performance of independent predictors was assessed and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and DeLong's test.

RESULTS

In CEM, the maximum cross-sectional area (CSAmax), the percentage signal difference between the enhancing lesion and background in the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projection (%RSCC, and %RSMLO) were found to be significantly higher for DCISM compared to DCIS (p = 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.008). Additionally, there were noticeable statistical differences in the patterns of enhancement morphological distribution (EMD) and internal enhancement pattern (IEP) between DCIS and DCISM (p = 0.047; p = 0.008). In MRI, only CSAmax (p = 0.012) and IEP (p = 0.020) showed significant statistical differences. The multivariate regression analysis suggested that CSAmax (in CEM or MR) and %RSCC were independent predictors of DCISM (all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of CSAmax (CEM), %RSCC (CEM), Logit(P) (CEM), and CSAmax (MR) were 0.764, 0.795, 0.842, and 0.739, respectively. There were no significant differences in DeLong's test for these values (all p > 0.10). DCISM was significantly associated with high nuclear grade, comedo type, high axillary lymph node (ALN) metastasis, and high Ki-67 positivity compared to DCIS (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The tumor size (CSAmax), enhancement index (%RS), and internal enhancement pattern (IEP) were highly indicative of DCISM. DCISM tends to express more aggressive pathological features, such as high nuclear grade, comedo-type necrosis, ALN metastasis, and Ki-67 overexpression. As with MRI, CEM has the capability to help predict when DCISM is accompanying DCIS.

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

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

Peri-lesion regions in differentiating suspicious breast calcification-only lesions specifically on contrast enhanced mammography

PURPOSE

The explore the added value of peri-calcification regions on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions presenting as only calcification on routine mammogram.

METHODS

Patients who underwent CEM because of suspicious calcification-only lesions were included. The test set included patients between March 2017 and March 2019, while the validation set was collected between April 2019 and October 2019. The calcifications were automatically detected and grouped by a machine learning-based computer-aided system. In addition to extracting radiomic features on both low-energy (LE) and recombined (RC) images from the calcification areas, the peri-calcification regions, which is generated by extending the annotation margin radially with gradients from 1 mm to 9 mm, were attempted. Machine learning (ML) models were built to classify calcifications into malignant and benign groups. The diagnostic matrices were also evaluated by combing ML models with subjective reading.

RESULTS

Models for LE (significant features: wavelet-LLL_glcm_Imc2_MLO; wavelet-HLL_firstorder_Entropy_MLO; wavelet-LHH_glcm_DifferenceVariance_CC; wavelet-HLL_glcm_SumEntropy_MLO;wavelet-HLH_glrlm_ShortRunLowGray LevelEmphasis_MLO; original_firstorder_Entropy_MLO; original_shape_Elongation_MLO) and RC (significant features: wavelet-HLH_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized_MLO; wavelet-LLH_firstorder_10Percentile_CC; original_firstorder_Maximum_MLO; wavelet-HHH_glcm_Autocorrelation_MLO; original_shape_Elongation_MLO; wavelet-LHL_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized_MLO; wavelet-LLH_firstorder_RootMeanSquared_MLO) images were set up with 7 features. Areas under the curve (AUCs) of RC models are significantly better than those of LE models with compact and expanded boundary (RC v.s. LE, compact: 0.81 v.s. 0.73, p < 0.05; expanded: 0.89 v.s. 0.81, p < 0.05) and RC models with 3 mm boundary extension yielded the best performance compared to those with other sizes (AUC = 0.89). Combining with radiologists' reading, the 3mm-boundary RC model achieved a sensitivity of 0.871 and negative predictive value of 0.937 with similar accuracy of 0.843 in predicting malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The machine learning model integrating intra- and peri-calcification regions on CEM has the potential to aid radiologists' performance in predicting malignancy of suspicious breast calcifications.

BIRADS 4 - Is it possible to downgrade lesions that do not enhance on recombinant contrast-enhanced mammography images?

PURPOSE

Analysis of the morphology of lesions classified into the BI-RADS 4 category and assessment of the possibility of downgrade the BI-RADS category in those that did not show enhancement on recombinant contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images.

METHOD

The retrospective, single-center study included 528 patients who underwent a core needle biopsy performed from January 2017 to November 2022 due to a breast lesion classified as BI-RADS 4 on CEM. Patients' electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed. Individual lesions were classified into the morphological categories of mass, non-mass, and microcalcifications. Sensitivity, specificity, positive as well as negative predictive values were calculated for the whole group and individual morphological categories. The influence of the lesions' diameter on the results was analyzed.

RESULTS

CEM NPV for the whole group was 93.9% (±95% CI: 90.0-96.4), for mass lesions 100% (±95% CI: 94.5-100), for non-mass lesions 97.8% (±95% CI: 87.0-99.9) and 87.9% (±95% CI: 80.3-93.0) for microcalcifications. Given that 230 out of 383 benign lesions were not contrast-enhancing, 60.1% of unnecessary CNBs would have been correctly avoided. CEM sensitivity for lesions < 20 mm was lower than for lesions ≥ 20 mm and was respectively 86.6% (±95% CI: 76.8-92.8) vs 94.6% (±95% CI: 86.0-98.2), respectively.

CONCLUSION

CEM is characterized by high sensitivity in the detection of malignant lesions in the case of lesions with mass and non-mass morphology. The high NPV for recombinant images suggests that in the case of these lesions, the lack of enhancement supports the benign nature of the lesion and may lead to a downgrade of the BI-RADS category.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

KEY POINTS

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

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ² = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammographic Features of In Situ and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Manifesting Microcalcifications Only: Help to Predict Underestimation?

BACKGROUND

The contrast-enhanced mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) manifesting microcalcifications only on mammograms were evaluated to determine whether they could predict IDC underestimation.

METHODS

We reviewed patients who underwent mammography-guided biopsy on suspicious breast microcalcifications only and received contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) within 2 weeks before the biopsy. Those patients who were proven to have cancers (DCIS or IDC) by biopsy and subsequently had surgical treatment in our hospital were included for analysis. The presence or absence, size, morphology and texture of enhancement on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography were reviewed by consensus of two radiologists.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included for analysis. Forty patients (81.6%) showed enhancement, including 18 (45%) DCIS and 22 (55%) IDC patients. All nine unenhanced cancers were pure DCIS. Pure DCIS showed 72.22% nonmass enhancement and 83.33% pure ground glass enhancement. IDC showed more mass (72.2% vs. 27.8%) and solid enhancements (83.33% vs. 16.67%). The cancer and texture of enhancement were significantly different between pure DCIS and IDC, with moderate diagnostic performance for the former (p-value < 0.01, AUC = 0.66, sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 39%) and the latter (p-value < 0.01, AUC = 0.74, sensitivity = 65%, specificity = 83%). Otherwise, pure DCIS showed a significant difference in enhanced texture compared with upgraded IDC and IDC (p = 0.0226 and 0.0018, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonmass and pure ground glass enhancements were closely related to pure DCIS, and cases showing mass and unpurified solid enhancements should be suspected as IDC. Unenhanced DCIS with microcalcifications only has a low DCIS upgrade rate. The CESM-enhanced features could feasibly predict IDC underestimation.