Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast

Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new imaging technique that allows morphologic, anatomic and functional imaging of the breast. The aim of our study was to validate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to mammography (MMG) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in daily clinical practice. This retrospective study included 316 consecutive patients who underwent MMG, DBT and CEM at the Centre for Prevention and Diagnosis of Chronic Diseases of Primorsko-goranska County. Two breast radiologists independently analyzed the image data, without available anamnestic information and without the possibility of comparison with previous images, to determine the presence of suspicious lesions and their morphological features according to the established criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The diagnostic value of MMG, DBT and CEM was assessed by ROC analysis. The interobserver agreement was excellent. CEM showed higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity compared to MMG and DBT, the reporting time for CEM was significantly shorter, and CEM findings resulted in a significantly lower proportion of equivocal findings (BI-RADS 0), suggesting fewer additional procedures. In conclusion, CEM achieves high diagnostic accuracy while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility and applicability in complex clinical settings.

Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis in women with dense breasts and additional breast cancer risk factors: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %-81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470.

Comparison of the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) recombinant images in detecting malignant lesions in patients with extremely dense breasts compared to the all-densities population.

Material and methods

792 patients with 808 breast lesions, in whom the final decision on core-needle biopsy was made based on CEM, and who received the result of histopathological examination, were qualified for a single-centre, retrospective study. Patient electronic records and imaging examinations were reviewed to establish demographics, clinical and imaging findings, and histopathology results. The CEM images were reassessed and assigned to the appropriate American College of Radiology (ACR) density categories.

Results

Extremely dense breasts were present in 86 (10.9%) patients. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of malignant lesions in 52.6% of cases in the entire group of patients and 43% in the group of extremely dense breasts. CEM incorrectly classified the lesion as false negative in 16/425 (3.8%) cases for the whole group, and in 1/37 (2.7%) cases for extremely dense breasts. The sensitivity of CEM for the group of all patients was 96.2%, specificity - 60%, positive predictive values (PPV) - 72.8%, and negative predictive values (NPV) - 93.5%. In the group of patients with extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of the method was 97.3%, specificity - 59.2%, PPV - 64.3%, and NPV - 96.7%.

Conclusions

CEM is characterised by high sensitivity and NPV in detecting malignant lesions regardless of the type of breast density. In patients with extremely dense breasts, CEM could serve as a complementary or additional examination in the absence or low availability of MRI.

Breast masses with rim enhancement on contrast-enhanced mammography: morphological and enhancement features for diagnosis and differentiation of benign and malignant

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the imaging characteristics and clinicopathological features of rim enhancement of breast masses demonstrated on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

67 cases of breast lesions confirmed by pathology and showing rim enhancement on CEM examinations were analyzed. The lesions were divided into benign and malignant groups, and the morphological and enhanced features were described. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated separately for each morphology descriptor to evaluate the diagnostic ability of each indicator.

RESULTS

There were 35 (52.2%) malignant and 32 (47.8%) benign lesions. There are significant differences in the morphological and enhanced features between benign and malignant lesions. 29/35 (82.9%) malignant lesions exhibited irregular shapes, and 31/35 (88.6%) showed indistinct margins. 28/35 (80%) malignant lesions displayed strong enhancement on CEM, while 12/32 (37.5%) benign lesions exhibited weak enhancement (P = 0.001). Malignant lesions showed a higher incidence of unsmooth inner walls than benign lesions (28/35 vs 7/32; P <.001). Lesion margins showed high sensitivity of 88.57% and NPV of 81.8%. The presence of suspicious calcifications had the highest specificity of 100% and PPV of 100%. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the combined parameters were 97.14%, 93.15%, 94.44%, and 96.77%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of morphological and enhanced features of breast lesions exhibiting rim enhancement on CEM can improve the differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This article provides a reference for the differential diagnosis of ring enhanced lesions on CEM.

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced spectral imaging (CEM) is a new mammography technique, but its diagnostic value in dense breasts is still inconclusive. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically until August 6, 2023. Prospective and retrospective studies were included to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for suspicious findings in dense breasts. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies. STATA V.16.0 and Review Manager V.5.3 were used to meta-analyze the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies (827 patients, 958 lesions) were included. These 10 studies reported the diagnostic performance of CEM for the workup of suspicious lesions in patients with dense breasts. The summary sensitivity and summary specificity were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.89), respectively. Enhanced lesions, circumscribed margins, and malignancy were statistically correlated. The relative malignancy OR value of the enhanced lesions was 28.11 (95% CI, 6.84-115.48). The relative malignancy OR value of circumscribed margins was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.45).

CONCLUSION

CEM has high diagnostic performance in the workup of suspicious findings in dense breasts, and when lesions are enhanced and have irregular margins, they are often malignant.

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.

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Contrast Media-Enhanced Breast Computed Tomography With a Photon-Counting Detector: Initial Experiences on In Vivo Image Quality and Correlation to Histology

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility, the image quality, and the correlation with histology of dedicated spiral breast computed tomography (B-CT) equipped with a photon-counting detector in patients with suspicious breast lesions after application of iodinated contrast media.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The local ethics committee approved this prospective study. Twelve women with suspicious breast lesions found in mammography or B-CT underwent contrast-enhanced spiral B-CT and supplementary ultrasound. For all lesions, biopsy-proven diagnosis and histological workup after surgical resection were obtained including the size of cancer/ductal carcinoma in situ, which were correlated to sizes measured in B-CT. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were evaluated for tumor, glandular tissue, and fatty tissue.

RESULTS

Of the 12 patients, 15 suspicious lesions were found, 14 were malignant, and 1 benign lesion corresponded to a chronic inflammation. All lesions showed strong contrast media uptake with a signal-to-noise ratio of 119.7 ± 52.5 with a contrast-to-noise ratio between glandular tissue and breast cancer lesion of 12.6 ± 5.9. The correlation of the size of invasive tumors measured in B-CT compared with histological size was significant and strong R = 0.77 ( P < 0.05), whereas the correlation with the size of the peritumoral ductal carcinoma in situ was not significant R = 0.80 ( P = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast-enhanced B-CT shows high contrast between breast cancer and surrounding glandular tissue; therefore, it is a promising technique for cancer detection and staging depicting both soft tissue lesions and microcalcifications, which might be a substantial advantage over breast MRI.

Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach

BACKGROUND

Cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) remain the main 3D modalities for X-ray breast imaging. This study aimed to systematically evaluate and meta-analyze the comparison of diagnostic accuracy of CBBCT and DBT to characterize breast cancers.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers identified screening on diagnostic studies from 1 January 2015 to 30 December 2021, with at least reported sensitivity and specificity for both CBBCT and DBT. A univariate pooled meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model to estimate the sensitivity and specificity while other diagnostic parameters like the area under the ROC curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were estimated using the bivariate model.

RESULTS

The pooled sensitivity specificity, LR+ and LR- and AUC at 95% confidence interval are 86.7% (80.3-91.2), 87.0% (79.9-91.8), 6.28 (4.40-8.96), 0.17 (0.12-0.25) and 0.925 for the 17 included studies in DBT arm, respectively, while, 83.7% (54.6-95.7), 71.3% (47.5-87.2), 2.71 (1.39-5.29), 0.20 (0.04-1.05), and 0.831 are the pooled sensitivity specificity, LR+ and LR- and AUC for the five studies in the CBBCT arm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that DBT shows improved diagnostic performance over CBBCT regarding all estimated diagnostic parameters; with the statistical improvement in the AUC of DBT over CBBCT. The CBBCT might be a useful modality for breast cancer detection, thus we recommend more prospective studies on CBBCT application.

Comparative Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with and without Ultrasound versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Detecting Breast Lesion

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a fairly recent breast imaging technique invented to overcome the challenges of overlapping breast tissue. Ultrasonography (USG) was used as a complementary tool to DBT for the purpose of this study. Nonetheless, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) remains the most sensitive tool to detect breast lesion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of DBT, with and without USG, versus breast MRI in correlation to histopathological examination (HPE). This was a retrospective study in a university hospital over a duration of 24 months. Findings were acquired from a formal report and were correlated with HPE. The sensitivity of DBT with or without USG was lower than MRI. However, the accuracy, specificity and PPV were raised with the aid of USG to equivalent or better than MRI. These three modalities showed statistically significant in correlation with HPE (p < 0.005, chi-squared). Generally, DBT alone has lower sensitivity as compared to MRI. However, it is reassuring that DBT + USG could significantly improve diagnostic performance to that comparable to MRI. In conclusion, results of this study are vital to centers which do not have MRI, as complementary ultrasound can accentuate diagnostic performance of DBT.

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 Mammography: A Guide to Setting Up a New Clinical Program

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is gaining rapid traction following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for diagnostic indications. Contrast-enhanced mammography is an alternative form of mammography that uses a dual-energy technique for image acquisition after the intravenous administration of iodinated contrast material. The resulting exam includes a dual set of images, one that appears similar to a routine 2D mammogram and one that highlights areas of contrast uptake. Studies have shown improved sensitivity compared to mammography and similar performance to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. As radiology groups incorporate CEM into clinical practice they must first select the indications for which CEM will be used. Many practices initially use CEM as an MRI alternative or in cases recommended for biopsy. Practices should then define the CEM clinical workflow and patient selection to include ordering, scheduling, contrast safety screening, and managing imaging on the day of the exam. The main equipment requirements for performing CEM include CEM-capable mammography equipment, a power injector for contrast administration, and imaging-viewing capability. The main staffing requirements include personnel to place the intravenous line, perform the CEM exam, and interpret the CEM. To safely and appropriately perform CEM, staff must be trained in their respective roles and to manage potential contrast-related events. Lastly, informing referring colleagues and patients of CEM through marketing campaigns is helpful for successful implementation.