Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosythesis and breast MRI to monitor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: patient tolerance and preference

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.

Predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Can the addition of tomosynthesis improve the accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography? A comparison with breast MRI

OBJECTIVES

Image monitoring is essential to monitor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Whilst breast MRI is the gold-standard technique, evidence suggests contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is comparable. We investigate whether the addition of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to CESM increases the accuracy of response prediction.

METHODS

Women receiving NACT for breast cancer were included. Imaging with CESM+DBT and MRI was performed post-NACT. Imaging appearance was compared with pathological specimens. Accuracy for predicting pathological complete response (pCR) and concordance with size of residual disease was calculated.

RESULTS

Sixteen cancers in 14 patients were included, 10 demonstrated pCR. Greatest accuracy for predicting pCR was with CESM enhancement (accuracy: 81.3%, sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 57.1%), followed by MRI (accuracy: 62.5%, sensitivity: 44.4%, specificity: 85.7%). Concordance with invasive tumour size was greater for CESM enhancement than MRI, concordance-coefficients 0.70 vs 0.66 respectively. MRI demonstrated greatest concordance with whole tumour size followed by CESM+microcalcification, concordance coefficients 0.86 vs 0.69. DBT did not improve accuracy for prediction of pCR or residual disease size. CESM+DBT underestimated size of residual disease, MRI overestimated but no significant differences were seen (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CESM is similar to MRI for predicting residual disease post-NACT. Size of enhancement alone demonstrates best concordance with invasive disease. Inclusion of residual microcalcification improves concordance with ductal carcinoma in situ. The addition of DBT to CESM does not improve accuracy.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The addition ofDBT to CESM does not improve NACT response prediction.CESM enhancement has greatest accuracy for residual invasive disease, CESM+calcification has greater accuracy for residual in situ disease.

Costing analysis to introduce a contrast-enhanced mammography service to replace an existing breast MRI service for local staging of breast cancer

AIM

To assess the cost impact of switching from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) to contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for loco-regional staging of breast cancer from a public healthcare perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The CE-MRI cost was obtained from the NHS reference cost. The CESM cost was calculated using a bottom-up approach including use of the machine, pump injector, contrast medium, image storage, and time allocation for staff reporting and cannulation. The cost of upgrading existing machines to CESM or purchasing new mammographic machines was obtained via national procurement. Other costs were obtained from local pharmacy, published unit cost data, or estimated based on surveys.

RESULTS

For large health boards in Scotland (≥500 cancers diagnosed per annum), the cost savings of switching from CE-MRI to CESM range from £64,069 to £81,570. For small health boards (<500 cancers diagnosed per annum), the cost savings of switching from CE-MRI to CESM range from £6,453 to £23,953. The cost savings are most sensitive to the number of tests conducted per year, and whether the existing mammography machine can be upgraded to CESM or not.

CONCLUSION

Switching from CE-MRI to CESM for loco-regional staging of breast cancer is likely to be cost saving for both large and small health boards in Scotland. Further research is urgently needed to confirm the non-inferiority of CESM to CE-MRI as a locoregional staging technique. The input data of this analysis can be updated when such results become available.