1
|
Neeter LM, Nelemans PJ, Raat H, Frotscher C, Duvivier KM, Essers BA, Smidt ML, Wildberger JE, Lobbes MB. Contrast-enhanced mammography versus conventional imaging in women recalled from breast cancer screening (RACER trial): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial. THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH. EUROPE 2024; 44:100987. [PMID: 39049869 PMCID: PMC11268340 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2024] [Revised: 06/12/2024] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 07/27/2024]
Abstract
Background Women recalled from breast cancer screening receive post-screening work-up in the hospital with conventional breast imaging. The RACER trial aimed to study whether contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) as primary imaging instead of conventional imaging resulted in more accurate and efficient diagnostic work-up in recalled women. Methods In this randomised, controlled trial (registered under NL6413/NTR6589) participants were allocated using deterministic minimisation to CEM or conventional imaging as a primary work-up tool in two general and two academic hospitals. Predefined patients' factors were reason for recall, BI-RADS score, and study centre. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of women needing supplemental examinations, and number of days until diagnosis. Findings Between April, 2018, and September, 2021, 529 patients recalled from the Dutch screening program were randomised, 265 to conventional imaging and 264 to CEM. Three patients in the control arm had to be excluded from analysis due to a protocol breach. After the entire work-up, sensitivity was 98.0% (95% CI; 92.2-99.7%) in the intervention arm and 97.7% (91.8-99.6%) in the control arm (p = 1.0), and specificity was 75.6% (72.5-76.6%) and 75.4% (72.5-76.4%, p = 1.0), respectively. Based on only primary full-field digital mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis or CEM, final diagnosis was reached in 27.7% (73/264) in the intervention arm and 1.1% (3/262) in the control arm. The frequency of supplemental imaging was significantly higher in the control arm (p < 0.0001). Median time needed to reach final diagnosis was comparable: 1 day (control arm: IQR 0-4; intervention arm: IQR 0-3). Thirteen malignant occult lesions were detected using CEM, versus three using conventional imaging. No serious adverse events occurred. Interpretation Diagnostic accuracy of CEM in the work-up of recalled women is comparable with conventional imaging. However, work-up with CEM as primary imaging is a more efficient pathway. Funding ZonMw (grant number 843001801) and GE Healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lidewij M.F.H. Neeter
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Patricia J. Nelemans
- Maastricht University, Department of Epidemiology, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - H.P.J. Raat
- Laurentius Hospital, Department of Radiology, P.O. Box 920, 6040 AX, Roermond, the Netherlands
| | - Caroline Frotscher
- Zuyderland Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, P.O. Box 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| | - Katya M. Duvivier
- Amsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Radiology, P.O. Box 7057, 1007MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Brigitte A.B. Essers
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Marjolein L. Smidt
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Joachim E. Wildberger
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Marc B.I. Lobbes
- Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, P.O. Box 5800, 6202AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Zuyderland Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, P.O. Box 5500, 6130 MB, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
van Nijnatten TJA, Lobbes MBI, Cozzi A, Patel BK, Zuley ML, Jochelson MS. Barriers to Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023; 221:3-6. [PMID: 36448912 PMCID: PMC11025563 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.22.28567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Accumulating evidence shows that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has higher diagnostic performance than digital mammography and ultrasound and comparable diagnostic performance to MRI for various indications. CEM also offers certain practical advantages for patients. Nevertheless, the clinical implementation of CEM has been limited because of a range of factors. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review explores such factors hindering CEM implementation. These factors include the following: the risks of iodinated contrast media, increased radiation exposure, indications for which CEM is not the preferred test or for which further evidence is needed, workflow adjustments needed when performing CEM examinations, incomplete availability of CEM-guided biopsy systems, and reimbursement challenges. Considerations that currently mitigate or are expected to mitigate these factors are also highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thiemo J A van Nijnatten
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, Maastricht 6202 AZ, The Netherlands
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands
| | - Andrea Cozzi
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | | | | | - Maxine S Jochelson
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Yang ML, Bhimani C, Roth R, Germaine P. Contrast enhanced mammography: focus on frequently encountered benign and malignant diagnoses. Cancer Imaging 2023; 23:10. [PMID: 36691077 PMCID: PMC9872331 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-023-00526-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mindy L. Yang
- grid.411896.30000 0004 0384 9827Department of Radiology, Cooper University Hospital, 1 Cooper Plaza, Camden, NJ 08103 USA ,Present address: SimonMed Imaging, 6900 E Camelback Road, Suite 700, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 USA
| | - Chandni Bhimani
- grid.411896.30000 0004 0384 9827Department of Radiology, Cooper University Hospital, 1 Cooper Plaza, Camden, NJ 08103 USA ,Present address: Atlantic Medical Imaging, Bayport One Office Building, 8025 Black Horse Pike, Suite 300, West Atlantic City, NJ 08232 USA
| | - Robyn Roth
- grid.411896.30000 0004 0384 9827Department of Radiology, Cooper University Hospital, 1 Cooper Plaza, Camden, NJ 08103 USA
| | - Pauline Germaine
- grid.411896.30000 0004 0384 9827Department of Radiology, Cooper University Hospital, 1 Cooper Plaza, Camden, NJ 08103 USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bahl M. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: An Emerging Modality in Breast Imaging. Radiology 2022; 302:582-583. [PMID: 34904880 PMCID: PMC8893180 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.212856] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Revised: 11/21/2021] [Accepted: 11/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Manisha Bahl
- From the Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55
Fruit St, WAC 240, Boston, MA 02114
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cozzi A, Schiaffino S, Fanizza M, Magni V, Menicagli L, Monaco CG, Benedek A, Spinelli D, Di Leo G, Di Giulio G, Sardanelli F. Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:7388-7399. [PMID: 35648209 PMCID: PMC9668944 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2022] [Revised: 04/19/2022] [Accepted: 05/08/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
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%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Cozzi
- grid.4708.b0000 0004 1757 2822Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Simone Schiaffino
- grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Marianna Fanizza
- grid.419425.f0000 0004 1760 3027Department of Breast Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi 19, 27100 Pavia, Italy
| | - Veronica Magni
- grid.4708.b0000 0004 1757 2822Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milano, Italy
| | - Laura Menicagli
- grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Cristian Giuseppe Monaco
- grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Adrienn Benedek
- grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Diana Spinelli
- grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Giovanni Di Leo
- grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Di Giulio
- grid.419425.f0000 0004 1760 3027Department of Breast Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi 19, 27100 Pavia, Italy
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- grid.4708.b0000 0004 1757 2822Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milano, Italy ,grid.419557.b0000 0004 1766 7370Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cozzi A, Magni V, Zanardo M, Schiaffino S, Sardanelli F. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance. Radiology 2021; 302:568-581. [PMID: 34904875 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 55] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Cozzi
- From the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (A.C., V.M., M.Z., F.S.); and Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., F.S.)
| | - Veronica Magni
- From the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (A.C., V.M., M.Z., F.S.); and Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., F.S.)
| | - Moreno Zanardo
- From the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (A.C., V.M., M.Z., F.S.); and Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., F.S.)
| | - Simone Schiaffino
- From the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (A.C., V.M., M.Z., F.S.); and Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., F.S.)
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- From the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (A.C., V.M., M.Z., F.S.); and Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., F.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Galati F, Moffa G, Pediconi F. Breast imaging: Beyond the detection. Eur J Radiol 2021; 146:110051. [PMID: 34864426 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.110051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2020] [Revised: 07/23/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease nowadays, including different biological subtypes with a variety of possible treatments, which aim to achieve the best outcome in terms of response to therapy and overall survival. In recent years breast imaging has evolved considerably, and the ultimate goal is to predict these strong phenotypic differences noninvasively. Indeed, breast cancer multiparametric studies can highlight not only qualitative imaging parameters, as the presence/absence of a likely malignant finding, but also quantitative parameters, suggesting clinical-pathological features through the evaluation of imaging biomarkers. A further step has been the introduction of artificial intelligence and in particular radiogenomics, that investigates the relationship between breast cancer imaging characteristics and tumor molecular, genomic and proliferation features. In this review, we discuss the main techniques currently in use for breast imaging, their respective fields of use and their technological and diagnostic innovations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesca Galati
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 324, 00161 Rome, Italy.
| | - Giuliana Moffa
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 324, 00161 Rome, Italy
| | - Federica Pediconi
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena, 324, 00161 Rome, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Neeter LM, Raat H(F, Alcantara R, Robbe Q, Smidt ML, Wildberger JE, Lobbes MB. Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know. BJR Open 2021; 3:20210034. [PMID: 34877457 PMCID: PMC8611680 DOI: 10.1259/bjro.20210034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2021] [Revised: 07/29/2021] [Accepted: 07/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - H.P.J. (Frank) Raat
- Department of Medical Imaging, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, the Netherlands
| | | | - Quirien Robbe
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | | - Joachim E. Wildberger
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Jochelson MS, Lobbes MBI. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art. Radiology 2021; 299:36-48. [PMID: 33650905 PMCID: PMC7997616 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021201948] [Citation(s) in RCA: 131] [Impact Index Per Article: 43.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2020] [Revised: 10/09/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maxine S. Jochelson
- From the Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 (M.S.J.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.)
| | - Marc B. I. Lobbes
- From the Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065 (M.S.J.); Department of Medical Imaging, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard-Geleen, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.); and GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands (M.B.I.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Covington MF. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Implementation, Performance, and Use for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening. Radiol Clin North Am 2020; 59:113-128. [PMID: 33222993 DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technology that provides recombined contrast-enhanced images of the breast in addition to low-energy images analogous to a 2-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Because most breast imaging centers do not use CEM at this time, a detailed overview of CEM implementation and performance is presented. Thereafter, the potential use of CEM for supplemental screening is discussed in detail, given the importance of this topic for the future of the CEM community. Diagnostic performance, safety, and cost considerations of CEM for dense breast tissue supplemental screening are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew F Covington
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Center for Quantitative Cancer Imaging, Huntsman Cancer Institute, 2000 Circle of Hope, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
| |
Collapse
|