BIRADS 4 breast lesions: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI

Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

DESIGN

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane libraries up to 18 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included trials studies, compared the results of different researchers on CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, and calculated the diagnostic value of CESM for breast cancer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) evaluated the methodological quality of all the included studies. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses specification. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, other important parameters were explored in an analysis of CESM accuracy for breast cancer diagnosis. For overall accuracy estimation, summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. STATA V.14.0 was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 12 studies. According to the summary estimates for CESM in the diagnosis of breast cancer, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.85), respectively. Positive likelihood ratio was 4.03 (95% CI 2.65 to 6.11), negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.09) and the diagnostic odds ratio was 89.49 (95% CI 45.78 to 174.92). Moreover, there was a 0.95 area under the curve.

CONCLUSIONS

The CESM has high sensitivity and good specificity when it comes to evaluating breast cancer, particularly in women with dense breasts. Thus, provide more information for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

The Role of Calcium in Non-Invasively Imaging Breast Cancer: An Overview of Current and Modern Imaging Techniques

The landscape of breast cancer diagnostics has significantly evolved over the past decade. With these changes, it is possible to provide a comprehensive assessment of both benign and malignant breast calcifications. The biochemistry of breast cancer and calcifications are thoroughly examined to describe the potential to characterize better different calcium salts composed of calcium carbonate, calcium oxalate, or calcium hydroxyapatite and their associated prognostic implications. Conventional mammographic imaging techniques are compared to available ones, including breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced mammography. Additional methods in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are discussed. The concept of using magnetic resonance imaging particularly magnetic susceptibility to characterize the biochemical characteristics of calcifications is described. As we know magnetic resonance imaging is safe and there is no ionization radiation. Experimental findings through magnetic resonance susceptibility imaging techniques are discussed to illustrate the potential for integrating this technique to provide a quantitative assessment of magnetic susceptibility. Under the right magnetic resonance imaging conditions, a distinct phase variability was isolated amongst different types of calcium salts.

Preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: Contrast-enhanced mammography versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. It is responsible for about 23% of cancer in females in both developed and developing countries. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) in preoperative evaluations of breast lesions.

METHODS

We searched for published literature in the English language in MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASETM via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Trip database. For literature published in other languages, we searched national databases (Magiran and SID), KoreaMed, and LILACS. Metadisc1.4 software was used for statistical analysisRESULTS:A total of 1225 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of CEM and CEMRI was 0.946 (95% CI, 0.931-0.958) and 0.935 (95% CI, 0.920-0.949), respectively. The pooled specificity of CEM and CEMRI was 0.783 (95% CI, 0.758-0.807) and 0.715 (95% CI, 0.688-0.741), respectively. The sensitivity of CEM was the most in the United States (97%) and the specificity of CEM was the most in Brazil (88%). MRI sensitivity was the most in USA and Egypt (99%) and China had the most MRI specificity (81%) in diagnosis of breast lesions.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced mammography, a combination of high energy image and low energy image, can well display breast lesions and has the diagnostic efficacy equivalent to MRI. Importantly, CEM imaging shows higher specificity, positive predictive value, and diagnostic conformance rate than MRI. Despite some drawbacks such as higher irradiation and iodine usage, CEM has such advantages as convenient and fast examination, strong applicability, and low costs; thus, it can be popularized as a useful tool in breast disease.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a more accessible alternative to contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in breast imaging, but a summary comparison of published studies is lacking. Purpose To directly compare the performance of CEM and CE-MRI regarding sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value in detecting breast cancer, involving all publicly available studies in the English language. Materials and Methods Two readers extracted characteristics of studies investigating the comparative diagnostic performance of CEM and CE-MRI in detecting breast cancer. Studies published until April 2021 were eligible. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using bivariate random effects models. A Fagan nomogram was used to identify the maximum pretest probability at which posttest probabilities of a negative CEM or CE-MRI examination were in line with the 2% malignancy rate benchmark for downgrading a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 to a BI-RADS category 3 result. I ² statistics, Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias, and meta-regression were used. Results Seven studies investigating 1137 lesions (654 malignant, 483 benign) with an average cancer prevalence of 65.3% (range: 47.3%-82.2%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = .57). While the positive likelihood ratio was equal at a value of 3.1 for CE-MRI and 3.6 for CEM, the negative likelihood ratio of CE-MRI (0.04) was lower than that with CEM (0.12). CE-MRI had higher sensitivity for breast cancer than CEM (97% [95% CI: 86, 99] vs 91% [95% CI: 77, 97], respectively; P < .001) but lower specificity (69% [95% CI: 46, 85] vs 74% [95% CI: 52, 89]; P = .09). A Fagan nomogram demonstrated that the maximum pretest probability at which both tests could rule out breast cancer was 33% for CE-MRI and 14% for CEM. Furthermore, iodine concentration was positively associated with CEM sensitivity and negatively associated with its specificity (P = .04 and P < .001, respectively). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced MRI had superior sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios with higher pretest probabilities to rule out malignancy compared with contrast-enhanced mammography. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mann and Veldhuis in this issue.

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.

The diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and shear wave elastography in comparison to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for diagnosing BIRADS 3 and 4 lesions

Background

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of female morbidity and mortality. Management options vary between lesions of BIRADS categories 3 and 4. Therefore, reliable differentiation would improve outcome. Although sonomammography and contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) remain the cornerstone for assessment of breast disease, additional, non-invasive techniques can be used to increase the efficiency of evaluation such as shear wave elastography (SWE) and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI). This prospective study included 66 breast lesions that were categorized as BIRADS 3 or 4 by ultrasound ± mammography. All lesions were evaluated by SWE, CE-MRI and DW-MRI. For SWE, lesions were evaluated by both qualitative and quantitative methods. For CE-MRI, both morphological and kinematic evaluations were done and for DW-MRI, both qualitative and quantitative assessments were studied. Results of all imaging modalities were correlated to histopathology.

Results

Thirty-seven out of the examined 66 lesions (56.06%) were categorised as BIRADS 3, out of which 1 (2.7%) turned out to be malignant on histopathology and 36 (97.29%) were proved benign. Twenty-nine (43.93%) were categorized as BIRADS 4, out of which 2 (6.89%) turned out to be benign on pathology and 27 (93.1%) were proved malignant. Morphological and kinematic evaluations of CE-MRI showed 92.59% and 92.86%sensitivity, 94.74% and 84.21% specificity, 92.59 and 81.25%PPV, 94.74 and 94.12% NPV, and 93.85% and 87.88% accuracy respectively. Color-coded scoring of SWE showed indices of 89.29%, 68.42%, 67.57%, 89.66%, and 77.27% respectively. The calculated cut-off value for Emax differentiating benign from malignant was 65.15 kpa, resulting in indices of 96.43%, 57.89%, 95.65%, 62.79%, and 74.24% respectively. For Eratio, the calculated cut-off value was 4.55, resulting in indices of 71.43%, 68.42%, 76.47%, 62.50% and 69.70% respectively. For qualitative evaluation of DW-MRI, indices were 78.57%, 65.79%, 62.86%, 80.65%, and 71.21% respectively. For ADC, the calculated cut-off value was 1.25 × 103 mm2/s, which resulted in indices of 75.00%, 84.21%, 82.05%, 77.78%, and 80.30% respectively.

Conclusion

CE-MRI showed the best diagnostic performance indices. While, SWE and DW-MRI present variable diagnostic performance, both techniques can be used as an adjunct to other imaging modalities to aid the clinical decision and increase its diagnostic confidence.

Comparative study between contrast-enhanced mammography, tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma

Background

Mammography is accused of having low sensitivity and specificity in dense breast parenchyma. Also, women with dense breasts show an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Breast ultrasound has been used for several years for a better characterization of breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis are relative novel imaging techniques that have been implicated in breast cancer detection and diagnosis. We aimed to compare breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and breast ultrasound as complementary techniques to mammography in dense breast parenchyma.

Results

The study included 37 patients with 63 inconclusive mammography breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography, single-view tomosynthesis, and breast ultrasound. Mammography had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 48%, a positive predictive value of 68%, a negative predictive value of 68%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 68%. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 91%, a negative predictive value of 86%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 89%. Tomosynthesis had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 86%, a negative predictive value of 81%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 84%. Breast ultrasound had a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 85%, a positive predictive value of 90%, a negative predictive value of 96%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 92%.

Conclusion

Breast ultrasound, tomosynthesis, and contrast-enhanced mammography showed better performance compared to mammography in dense breasts. However, ultrasound being safe with no radiation hazards should be the second step modality of choice after mammography in the assessment of mammography dense breasts. Adding tomosynthesis to mammography in screening increases its sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced mammography should be reserved for cases with inconclusive sonomammographic results.

Can contrast-enhanced mammography replace dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the assessment of sonomammographic indeterminate breast lesions?

Background

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast has been used for several years in the assessment of indeterminate mammographic findings. Contrast-enhanced mammography is a relatively novel imaging technique that has shown comparable sensitivity and specificity to MRI. Contrast-enhanced mammography is a relatively easy feasible study with high sensitivity and low cost. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of replacing dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI by contrast-enhanced mammography in the assessment of sonomammographic indeterminate lesions (BIRADS 3 and 4).

Results

The study included 82 patients with 171 breast lesions. They all performed contrast-enhanced mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. DCE-MRI sensitivity and NPV were significantly higher than those of contrast-enhanced mammogram (CEM). The overall accuracy of MRI was better than that of CEM; however, no statistically significant difference could be detected.

Conclusion

Contrast-enhanced mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI improved the characterization of breast lesions. CEM showed slightly lower sensitivity and accuracy compared to MRI; however, because of being relatively easy, available, cheap, and acceptable by women, CEM can replace DC-MRI as a problem-solving tool in the characterization of indeterminate breast lesions.