Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI?

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.

False-Positive and False-Negative Contrast-enhanced Mammograms: Pitfalls and Strategies to Improve Cancer Detection

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new breast imaging modality that uses intravenous contrast material to increase detection of breast cancer. CEM combines the structural information of conventional mammography with the functional information of tumor neovascularity. Initial studies have demonstrated that CEM and MRI perform with similar accuracies, with CEM having a slightly higher specificity (fewer false positives), although larger studies are needed. There are various reasons for false positives and false negatives at CEM. False positives at CEM can be caused by benign lesions with vascularity, including benign tumors, infection or inflammation, benign lesions in the skin, and imaging artifacts. False negatives at CEM can be attributed to incomplete or inadequate visualization of lesions, marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) obscuring cancer, lack of lesion contrast enhancement due to technical issues or less-vascular cancers, artifacts, and errors of lesion perception or characterization. When possible, real-time interpretation of CEM studies is ideal. If additional views are necessary, they may be obtained while contrast material is still in the breast parenchyma. Until recently, a limitation of CEM was the lack of CEM-guided biopsy capability. However, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared two devices to support CEM-guided biopsy using a stereotactic biopsy technique. The authors review various causes of false-positive and false-negative contrast-enhanced mammograms and discuss strategies to reduce these diagnostic errors to improve cancer detection while mitigating unnecessary additional imaging and procedures. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12613000684729.

Contrast enhanced mammography: focus on frequently encountered benign and malignant diagnoses

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is becoming a widely adopted modality in breast imaging over the past few decades and exponentially so over the last few years, with strong evidence of high diagnostic performance in cancer detection. Evidence is also growing indicating comparative performance of CEM to MRI in sensitivity with fewer false positive rates. As application of CEM ranges from potential use in screening dense breast populations to staging of known breast malignancy, increased familiarity with the modality and its implementation, and disease processes encountered becomes of great clinical significance. This review emphasizes expected normal findings on CEM followed by a focus on examples of the commonly encountered benign and malignant pathologies on CEM.

Patient perspectives on repeated contrast-enhanced mammography and magnetic resonance during neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The burden perceived by the patient of repeated imaging required for neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) monitoring warrants attention due to the increased use of NAC and imaging.

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the experienced burden associated with repeated contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) during NAC for breast cancer from the patient perspective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Approval from the ethics committee and written informed consent were obtained. In this prospective study, CEM and MRI were performed on 38 patients with breast cancer before, during, and after NAC in a tertiary cancer center. The experienced burden was evaluated with a self-reported questionnaire addressing duration, comfort, anxiety, positioning, and intravenous contrast administration, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The participants were asked their preference between CEM or MRI. Statistical comparisons were performed and P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Most participants (n = 29, 76%) preferred CEM over MRI (P = 0.0008). CEM was associated with a significantly shorter duration (P < 0.001), greater overall comfort (P < 0.01), more comfortable positioning (P = 0.01), and lower anxiety (P = 0.03). Intravenous contrast administration perception revealed no significant difference. Only 4 (10%) participants preferred MRI over CEM, due to the absence of breast compression.

CONCLUSION

In the hypothetical scenario of equal diagnostic accuracy, most participants preferred CEM and compared CEM favorably to MRI in all investigated features at repeated imaging required for NAC response assessment. Our results indicate that repeated examinations with CEM is well tolerated and constitutes a patient-friendly alternative for NAC imaging monitoring in breast cancer.

Can Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) Reduce Benign Breast Biopsy?

Objectives

To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in reducing benign breast biopsy rate, thereby improving resource utilization. To explore its potential as a value-adding modality in the management of BI-RADS 4/5 lesions.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective study conducted between July 2016 and September 2018. Patients with BI-RADS 4/5 lesions detected on conventional imaging (mammogram, digital breast tomosynthesis, and ultrasound) were enrolled for adjunct CESM. Histopathologic correlation was done for all lesions. Additional suspicious lesions detected on CESM were all identified on second-look ultrasound and subsequently biopsied. Images were evaluated independently by two radiologists trained in breast imaging using BI-RADS classification. Presence of enhancement on CESM, BI-RADS score, and histopathology of each lesion were analyzed and tested with the chi-square/fisher-exact test for statistical significance.

Results

The study included 105 lesions in 63 participants—1 man and 62 women, an average age of 53.7 ± 10.8 years. On CESM, 22 (20.9%) of the lesions did not show enhancement. All 22 lesions had been classified as BI-RADS 4A and were subsequently proven to be benign. Of the remaining 83 enhancing lesions, 54 (65.1%) were malignant and 29 (34.9%) were benign (p < 0.05). CESM detected 6 additional lesions which were not identified on initial conventional imaging. Four of these were proven malignant and were in a different quadrant than the primary lesion investigated.

Conclusion

There is evidence that the absence of enhancement in CESM strongly favors benignity. It may provide the reporting radiologist with greater confidence in imaging assessment, especially in BI-RADS 4A cases, where a proportion of them are in actuality BI-RADS 3. Greater accuracy of BI-RADS grading can reduce nearly half of benign biopsies and allow better resource allocation. CESM also increases the detection rate of potentially malignant lesions, thereby changing the treatment strategies.

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

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Differentiating Breast Tumors from Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: The Role of Radiomics-A Pilot Reader Study

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the radiomic analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in discriminating between breast cancers and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). Methods: This retrospective study included 38 patients that underwent CESM examinations for clinical purposes between January 2019–December 2020. A total of 57 malignant breast lesions and 23 CESM examinations with 31 regions of BPE were assessed through radiomic analysis using MaZda software. The parameters that demonstrated to be independent predictors for breast malignancy were exported into the B11 program and a k-nearest neighbor classifier (k-NN) was trained on the initial groups of patients and was tested using a validation group. Histopathology results obtained after surgery were considered the gold standard. Results: Radiomic analysis found WavEnLL_s_2 parameter as an independent predictor for breast malignancies with a sensitivity of 68.42% and a specificity of 83.87%. The prediction model that included CH1D6SumAverg, CN4D6Correlat, Kurtosis, Perc01, Perc10, Skewness, and WavEnLL_s_2 parameters had a sensitivity of 73.68% and a specificity of 80.65%. Higher values were obtained of WavEnLL_s_2 and the prediction model for tumors than for BPEs. The comparison between the ROC curves provided by the WaveEnLL_s_2 and the entire prediction model did not show statistically significant results (p = 0.0943). The k-NN classifier based on the parameter WavEnLL_s_2 had a sensitivity and specificity on training and validating groups of 71.93% and 45.16% vs. 60% and 44.44%, respectively. Conclusion: Radiomic analysis has the potential to differentiate CESM between malignant lesions and BPE. Further quantitative insight into parenchymal enhancement patterns should be performed to facilitate the role of BPE in personalized clinical decision-making and risk assessment.

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Breast cancer diagnosis and staging is based on mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has gained momentum as an innovative and clinically useful method for breast assessment. CESM is based on abnormal enhancement of neoplastic tissue compared to surrounding breast tissue. We performed a systematic review of prospective trial to evaluate its diagnostic performance, following standard PRISMA-DTA. We used a bivariate random-effects regression approach to obtain summary estimates of both sensitivity and specificity of CESM. 8 studies published between 2003 and 2019 were included in the meta-analysis for a total of 945 lesions. The summary area under the curve obtained from all the study was 89% [95% CI 86%-91%], with a sensitivity of 85% [95% CI 73%-93%], and a specificity of 77% [95% CI 60%-88%]. With a pre-test probability of malignancy of 57% a positive finding at CESM gives a post-test probability of 83% while a negative finding a post-test probability of 20%. CESM shows a suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of breast cancer in a selected population, and at present time, it could be considered only as a possible alternative test for breast lesions assessment when mammography and ultrasound are not conclusive or MRI is contraindicated or not available.

Preferences and Attitudes Regarding Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening Among Patients with Dense Breasts

OBJECTIVE

New breast screening modalities are being investigated to address the need for more sensitive breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. We investigated the preferences and attitudes of these patients regarding adjunct screening modalities to help evaluate the acceptability of these exams.

METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved prospective study, patients with dense breasts on their prior mammogram were invited to complete a survey. Patients were asked to estimate their personal breast cancer risk compared with peers, indicate their level of concern related to screening callbacks, radiation exposure, and intravenous (IV) contrast allergies, and identify which factors might deter them from getting adjunct screening exams.

RESULTS

Five hundred eight patients with dense breasts presenting for screening mammography completed surveys. While most patients (304/508, 59.9%) felt it was likely or very likely that cancer could be missed on their mammogram, only 8.9% (45/508) had undergone adjunct screening exams in the past 3 years. The most commonly cited deterrents to adjunct screening were cost (340/508, 66.9%), pain (173/508, 34.1%), and concern that adjunct screening could lead to additional procedures (158/508, 31.1%). When asked to select among three hypothetical breast cancer screening modalities, patients strongly preferred the more sensitive examination, even if this involved greater cost (162/508, 31.9%) or IV-contrast administration (315/508, 62.0%).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that patients with dense breasts prefer adjunct screening exams that are both sensitive and inexpensive, although an increase in sensitivity could outweigh additional cost or even IV-line placement.

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

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

Purpose

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

Study Type

Prospective, single center.

Population

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

Field Strength/Sequence

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

Assessment

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

Statistical Test

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

Results

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

Data Conclusion

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

Level of Evidence

1

Technical Efficacy Stage

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

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM) in comparison with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM), either alone or accompanied with breast ultrasound (BUS) in a large series of patients/breast lesions (n = 644).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, five radiologists evaluated the lesions by three imaging modalities: FFDM, FFDM + BUS, and CESM and compared the imaging to the gold standard (histopathology or clinical follow-up). Diagnostic performance parameters and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of CESM were calculated and compared to those of FFDM or FFDM + BUS (McNemar's test). Additionally, the reliability of tumor size measurement by CESM was compared with the histopathological measurement.

RESULTS

The study included 218 benign and 426 malignant lesions. 85% of benign and 93% of malignant lesions were adequately identified using CESM. With respect to FFDM and FFDM + BUS, CESM significantly increased sensitivity to 93.2% (+ 10.7% and + 3.4%, respectively); specificity to 84.4% (+ 15.8% and + 1.7%, respectively); PPV to 92.3% (+ 26.8% and + 3.6%, respectively); NPV to 86.0% (+ 1.6% and + 1.8%, respectively); and accuracy to 90.2% (+ 15.8% and + 3.2%, respectively). In the ROC curves analyses, the comparison among the three AUC values was also statistically significant (p < 0.001). Good agreement between tumor diameters measured using CESM and histopathology was observed (Spearman's rank correlation, r = 0.891, p < 0.0001), although this technique tended to produce an overestimation of the size (+ 7 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

CESM has high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered as a useful technique for the assessment of breast lesions.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) for Detecting Residual Disease after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Comparison with Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

Objective

To evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for estimating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

Methods

The institutional review board approved this study. This prospective study included women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent breast CEM and MRI at the end of the last cycle of NAC and before definitive surgery. Size of residual malignancy on post-NAC CEM and MRI was compared with surgical pathology. Agreements and correlations of CEM and MRI measurements with histological size were assessed.

Results

Thirty-three patients were included with a mean age of 45 years (range 22-76). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for detection of residual disease of CEM were 76%, 87.5%, 95%, and 86.4%, and those of MRI were 92%, 75%, 92%, and 75%. Comparing CEM to MRI, the mean difference was -0.8 cm, concordance coefficient was 0.7, and Pearson correlation was 0.7 (p = 0.0003). The concordance coefficient between measurements of each imaging modality and pathologic tumor size was 0.7 for CEM and 0.4 for MRI. Pearson correlation was 0.8 for CEM and 0.5 for MRI. Mean differences between CEM, MRI, and residual histopathological tumor size were 0.8 cm and 1.8 cm, respectively.

Conclusions

CEM has good correlation and agreement with histopathology for measuring residual disease after NAC. CEM was comparable to MRI, showing high positive predictive value and specificity for detecting residual disease.

Utility of routine use of breast ultrasound following contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

AIM

To evaluate whether breast ultrasound (US) is routinely indicated following contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive screening and diagnostic CESM examinations with concurrent breast US were collected retrospectively (May 2012 to February 2016). Radiologists assigned a separate Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) score for CESM and for US. BIRADS scores were grouped into three categories: normal/benign appearing (BIRADS 1, 2); probably benign, short-term follow-up (BIRADS 3); or suspicious appearing (BIRADS 0, 4, 5). Patients with a suspicious-appearing lesion in either US or CESM underwent biopsy. The associations between malignant pathology with either suspicious-appearing CESM or suspicious-appearing US were calculated. The sensitivities and specificities of CESM and US were analysed.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven lesions were biopsied, 37 (43%) biopsies were malignant and 50 (57%) were benign. Although suspicious-appearing CESM was associated with malignant biopsies (p<0.0001), suspicious-appearing US was not (p=0.985). Among 37 malignant biopsies, CESM had a sensitivity of 97% (36/37 lesions), compared to 92% (34/37 lesions) with US. None of the malignant biopsies were normal/benign appearing with CESM. One case of follow-up CESM was suspicious-appearing at US and proved to be malignant on biopsy. The specificity of CESM was 40%, which was significantly higher than US at 8%.

CONCLUSION

When CESM is suspicious appearing, subsequent US and biopsy is appropriate. With a CESM BIRADS 3, correlation with US is suggested. If the CESM is benign appearing, the routine use of US is questionable, as it may lead to unnecessary benign biopsies.

False-negative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: use of more than one imaging modality and application of the triple test avoids misdiagnosis

A 50-year-old woman presented with chest tenderness. On examination, both breasts were lumpy. Bilateral mammography showed heterogeneously dense parenchyma, with possible stromal distortion laterally on the right at the 0900 position. On ultrasound (US), a corresponding 13×9×10 mm irregular hypoechoic mass with internal vascularity was noted and both breasts had a complex heterogeneous fibroglandular background pattern. US-guided core biopsy with marker clip insertion was performed with the diagnosis of a grade 2 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In view of the parenchymal pattern on mammography and US, contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) was performed for local staging. Mild background enhancement was noted, but there was no enhancement at the lesion site. The patient elected to have bilateral mastectomies and sentinel node biopsies. Final histopathology showed a node negative 11 mm grade 2 oestrogen and progesterone receptor positive, IDC.

A Case of a Concurrent and Co-Located Invasive Carcinoma and a Fibroadenoma to Illustrate the Potential of Dual-Energy, Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography on the Diagnosis of Complex Breast Lesions

Up to 19% of breast malignancies may be missed by conventional imaging techniques, especially when they are concurrent or co-located with other benign lesions. However, more sensitive techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are often too expensive for routine use in developing countries. Contrast-enhanced, dual-energy digital mammography (CESM) is a recently introduced imaging modality whose performance has been reported to be similar to that of MRI. Being much cheaper, CESM may constitute a good alternative for improving diagnostic sensitivity in these countries. In this paper, we present a challenging case of the concurrent and co-located presentation of a fibroadenoma and a triple negative invasive carcinoma of no special type (TNBC-NST). The malignancy was indistinguishable from the fibroadenoma by mammography. By ultrasound, a suspicious area was observed and biopsied, but the histopathology did not confirm a cancer diagnosis. As the suspicion was not confirmed, a second stage of the imaging diagnosis using CESM was recommended. This technique allowed clear visualization of the malignancy, which was finally excised by breast-conserving surgery. This case reveals the potential of CESM as an easy, rapid and inexpensive new technique for the diagnosis of malignancies that might easily remain occult to mammography plus breast ultrasound (BUS).

Degree of Enhancement on Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) and Lesion Type on Mammography (MG): Comparison Based on Histological Results

Background

Contrast enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a new method of breast cancer diagnosis in which an iodinated contrast agent is injected and dual-energy mammography is obtained in multiple views of the breasts. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of enhancement on CESM with lesion characteristics on mammography (MG) and lesion histology in women with suspicious breast lesions.

Material/Methods

The degree of enhancement on CESM (absent, weak, medium, or strong) was compared to lesion characteristics on MG (mass, mass with microcalcifications, or microcalcifications alone) and histology (infiltrating carcinoma, intraductal carcinoma, or benign) to compare sensitivity of the two modalities and to establish correlations that might improve diagnostic accuracy.

Results

Among 225 lesions identified with CESM and MG, histological evaluation revealed 143 carcinomas (127 infiltrating, 16 intraductal) and 82 benign lesions. This is the largest cohort investigated with CESM to date. The sensitivity of CESM was higher than that of MG (100% and 90%, respectively, p=0.010). Medium or strong enhancement on CESM and the presence of a mass on MG was the most likely indictor of malignancy (55.1% p=0.002). Among benign lesions, 60% presented as enhancement on CESM (were false-positive), and most frequently as medium or weak enhancement, together with a mass on MG (53%, p=0.047). Unfortunately, the study did not find combinations of MG findings and CESM enhancement patterns that would be helpful in defining false-positive lesions. We observed systematic overestimation of maximum lesion diameter on CESM compared to histology (mean difference: 2.29 mm).

Conclusions

Strong or medium enhancement on CESM and mass or mass with microcalcifications on MG were strong indicators of malignant transformation. However, we found no combination of MG and CESM characteristics helpful in defining false-positive lesions.

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To estimate sensitivity and specificity of CESM for breast cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of CESM in finding breast cancer in highly selected women. We estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity and specificity according to quality criteria with QUADAS-2.

RESULTS

Six hundred four studies were retrieved, 8 of these reporting on 920 patients with 994 lesions, were eligible for inclusion. Estimated sensitivity from all studies was: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Specificity was estimated from six studies reporting raw data: 0.58 (95% CI: 0.38-0.77). The majority of studies were scored as at high risk of bias due to the very selected populations.

CONCLUSION

CESM has a high sensitivity but very low specificity. The source studies were based on highly selected case series and prone to selection bias. High-quality studies are required to assess the accuracy of CESM in unselected cases.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study

OBJECTIVES

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising problem-solving tool in women referred from a breast cancer screening program. We aimed to study the validity of preliminary results of CESM using a larger panel of radiologists with different levels of CESM experience.

METHODS

All women referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program were eligible for CESM. 199 consecutive cases were viewed by ten radiologists. Four had extensive CESM experience, three had no CESM experience but were experienced breast radiologists, and three were residents. All readers provided a BI-RADS score for the low-energy CESM images first, after which the score could be adjusted when viewing the entire CESM exam. BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign and BI-RADS 4-5 malignant. With this cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve.

RESULTS

CESM increased diagnostic accuracy in all readers. The performance for all readers using CESM was: sensitivity 96.9 % (+3.9 %), specificity 69.7 % (+33.8 %) and area under the ROC curve 0.833 (+0.188).

CONCLUSION

CESM is superior to conventional mammography, with excellent problem-solving capabilities in women referred from the breast cancer screening program. Previous results were confirmed even in a larger panel of readers with varying CESM experience.

KEY POINTS

• CESM is consistently superior to conventional mammography • CESM increases diagnostic accuracy regardless of a reader's experience • CESM is an excellent problem-solving tool in recalls from screening programs.

Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

Background

The main goal of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with histopathological results and to compare the sensitivity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values for both imaging modalities.

Material/Methods

After ethics approval, CESM and MRI examinations were performed in 102 patients who had suspicious lesions described in conventional mammography. All visible lesions were evaluated independently by 2 experienced radiologists using BI-RADS classifications (scale 1–5). Dimensions of lesions measured with each modality were compared to postoperative histopathology results.

Results

There were 102 patients entered into CESM/MRI studies and 118 lesions were identified by the combination of CESM and breast MRI. Histopathology confirmed that 81 of 118 lesions were malignant and 37 were benign. Of the 81 malignant lesions, 72 were invasive cancers and 9 were in situ cancers. Sensitivity was 100% with CESM and 93% with breast MRI. Accuracy was 79% with CESM and 73% with breast MRI. ROC curve areas based on BI-RADS were 0.83 for CESM and 0.84 for breast MRI. Lesion size estimates on CESM and breast MRI were similar, both slightly larger than those from histopathology.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that CESM has the potential to be a valuable diagnostic method that enables accurate detection of malignant breast lesions, has high negative predictive value, and a false-positive rate similar to that of breast MRI.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance

INTRODUCTION

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) may have similar diagnostic performance to Contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMRI) in the diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. To date, research has focused exclusively on diagnostic performance when comparing these two techniques. Patient experience is also an important factor when comparing and deciding on which of these modalities is preferable. The aim of this study is to compare patient experience of CESM against CEMRI during preoperative breast cancer staging.

METHODS

Forty-nine participants who underwent both CESM and CEMRI, as part of a larger trial, completed a Likert questionnaire about their preference for each modality according to the following criteria: comfort of breast compression, comfort of intravenous (IV) contrast injection, anxiety and overall preference. Participants also reported reasons for preferring one modality to the other. Quantitative data were analysed using a Wilcoxon sign-rank test and chi-squared test. Qualitative data are reported descriptively.

RESULTS

A significantly higher overall preference towards CESM was demonstrated (n = 49, P < 0.001), with faster procedure time, greater comfort and lower noise level cited as the commonest reasons. Participants also reported significantly lower rates of anxiety during CESM compared with CEMRI (n = 36, P = 0.009). A significantly higher rate of comfort was reported during CEMRI for measures of breast compression (n = 49, P = 0.001) and the sensation of IV contrast injection (n = 49, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that overall, patients prefer the experience of CESM to CEMRI, adding support for the role of CESM as a possible alternative to CEMRI for breast cancer staging.

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography is one of the latest developments in breast care. Imaging with contrast agents in breast cancer was already known from previous magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography studies. However, high costs, limited availability-or high radiation dose-led to the development of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). We reviewed the current literature, present our experience, discuss the advantages and drawbacks of CESM and look at the future of this innovative technique.

Towards a nanoscale mammographic contrast agent: development of a modular pre-clinical dual optical/x-ray agent

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) can provide improved breast cancer detection and characterization compared to conventional mammography by imaging the effects of tumour angiogenesis. Current small-molecule contrast agents used for CEDM are limited by a short plasma half-life and rapid extravasation into tissue interstitial space. To address these limitations, nanoscale agents that can remain intravascular except at sites of tumour angiogenesis can be used. For CEDM, this agent must be both biocompatible and strongly attenuate mammographic energy x-rays. Nanoscale perfluorooctylbromide (PFOB) droplets have good x-ray attenuation and have been used in patients for other applications. However, the macroscopic scale of x-ray imaging (50-100 µm) is inadequate for direct verification that PFOB droplets localize at sites of breast tumour angiogenesis. For efficient pre-clinical optimization for CEDM, we integrated an optical marker into PFOB droplets for microscopic assessment (≪50 µm). To develop PFOB droplets as a new nanoscale mammographic contrast agent, PFOB droplets were labelled with fluorescent quantum dots (QDs). The droplets had mean diameters of 160 nm, fluoresced at 635 nm and attenuated x-ray spectra at 30.5 keV mean energy with a relative attenuation of 5.6 ± 0.3 Hounsfield units (HU) mg(-1) mL(-1) QD-PFOB. With the agent loaded into tissue phantoms, good correlation between x-ray attenuation and optical fluorescence was found (R(2) = 0.96), confirming co-localization of the QDs with PFOB for quantitative assessment using x-ray or optical methods. Furthermore, the QDs can be removed from the PFOB agent without affecting its x-ray attenuation or structural properties for expedited translation of optimized PFOB droplet formulations into patients.