Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

Enhancing diagnostic precision: comparative analysis of MR-guided breast biopsies performed in two centres

Purpose

Breast lesions that remain elusive in traditional imaging techniques such as ultrasound and mammography pose a diagnostic challenge. In such cases, magnetic resonance (MR)-guided breast biopsy emerges as a crucial tool for accurate histopathological verification. This article presents a comparative study conducted at 2 centres, exploring the results of MR-guided breast biopsies performed by experienced radiologists, based on inside and external referrals.

Material and methods

The study involved 228 patients, 120 of whom underwent biopsies at Centre 1, where the same radiologist performed both the qualification and biopsy. The remaining 108 patients were biopsied at Centre 2, based on referrals from different institutions. Uniform examination protocols were adopted at both centres, and all biopsies underwent histopathological verification.

Results

The distribution of lesion types was found to be independent of the apparatus used for biopsies (p = 0.759). Interestingly, Centre 1 exhibited a higher prevalence of infiltrating carcinomas compared to Centre 2 (p = 0.12). Furthermore, the analysis demonstrated a significant variance in the nature of the lesions in relation to breast structure and biopsy centre (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

MR-guided breast biopsy serves as a remarkable tool for verifying lesions that evade detection through conventional imaging methods and physical examinations. The study findings underscore the crucial role of radiologist experience in determining the efficacy of MR-guided breast biopsies.

Clinical Efficacy of Gadobutrol: Review of Over 25 Years of Use Exceeding 100 Million Administrations

BACKGROUND

Gadobutrol has been administered more than 100 million times worldwide, since February 1998, that is, over the last 25 years. Numerous clinical studies in a broad range of indications document the long-term experience with gadobutrol.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to provide a literature-based overview on gadobutrol's efficacy in 9 approved indications and use in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Efficacy results in patients of all age groups including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive/negative predictive values were identified by a systematic literature search on Embase until December 31, 2022. Nine approved indications were considered: central nervous system (CNS), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), breast, heart, prostate, kidney, liver, musculoskeletal, whole body, and various indications in children.

RESULTS

Sixty-five publications (10 phase III, 2 phase IV, 53 investigator-initiated studies) reported diagnostic efficacy results obtained from 7806 patients including 271 children, at 369 centers worldwide. Indication-specific sensitivity ranges were 59%-98% (CNS), 53%-100% (MRA), 80%-100% (breast), 64%-90% (heart), 64%-96% (prostate), 71-85 (kidney), 79%-100% (liver), 53%-98% (musculoskeletal), and 78%-100% (children). Indication-specific specificity ranges were 75%-100% (CNS), 64%-99% (MRA), 58%-98% (breast), and 47%-100% (heart).

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluated body of evidence, consisting of 65 studies with 7806 patients, including 271 children and 7535 adults, showed that gadobutrol is an efficacious magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent for all age groups in various approved indications throughout the whole body.

Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary medical practice, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive modality for detecting breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), a relatively recent technology, represents another contrast-enhanced imaging technique that has the potential to serve as an alternative to breast MRI. Our main goal is to compare the diagnostic accuracy including assessment of sensitivity and specificity of these 2 contrast-enhanced breast imaging methods, CEM and MRI, in the diagnosis and characterization of breast lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our prospective study included patients who were clinically suspected of malignancy and/or had suspicious findings detected by mammography or ultrasound. A total of 116 patients were included, and both CEM and MRI examinations were performed on all patients. All CEM examinations were conducted at our institution, while 56.89% of all MRI examinations were carried out at external centers. While histopathological results were accessible for all malignant lesions, the final diagnosis for 80.5% of benign lesions was established through typical imaging findings and adequate follow-up.

RESULTS

This study encompassed a total of 219 lesions, with 125 out of 219 (57.07%) malignant lesions and 94 out of 219 (42.92%) benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity values were 98.40% and 81.91%, respectively, for CEM, and 100% and 75.33%, respectively, for MRI. Moreover, CEM showcased comparable performance to MRI in evaluating women with dense breasts.

CONCLUSION

CEM and MRI were compared for breast lesion diagnosis, with MRI showing higher sensitivity and CEM higher specificity; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

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.

Mammography with deep learning for breast cancer detection

X-ray mammography is currently considered the golden standard method for breast cancer screening, however, it has limitations in terms of sensitivity and specificity. With the rapid advancements in deep learning techniques, it is possible to customize mammography for each patient, providing more accurate information for risk assessment, prognosis, and treatment planning. This paper aims to study the recent achievements of deep learning-based mammography for breast cancer detection and classification. This review paper highlights the potential of deep learning-assisted X-ray mammography in improving the accuracy of breast cancer screening. While the potential benefits are clear, it is essential to address the challenges associated with implementing this technology in clinical settings. Future research should focus on refining deep learning algorithms, ensuring data privacy, improving model interpretability, and establishing generalizability to successfully integrate deep learning-assisted mammography into routine breast cancer screening programs. It is hoped that the research findings will assist investigators, engineers, and clinicians in developing more effective breast imaging tools that provide accurate diagnosis, sensitivity, and specificity for breast cancer.

The Role of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography After Cryoablation of Breast Cancer

Image-guided cryoablation is an emerging therapeutic technique for the treatment of breast cancer and is a treatment strategy that is an effective alternate to surgery in select patients. Tumor features impacting the efficacy of cryoablation include size, location in relation to skin, and histology (e.g., extent of intraductal component), underscoring the importance of imaging for staging and workup in this patient population. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) utilization is increasing in both the screening and diagnostic settings and may be useful for follow-up imaging after breast cancer cryoablation, given its high sensitivity for cancer detection and its advantages in terms of PPV, time, cost, eligibility, and accessibility compared with contrast-enhanced MRI. This Clinical Perspective describes the novel use of CEM after breast cancer cryoablation, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of CEM compared with alternate imaging modalities, expected benign postablation CEM findings, and CEM findings suggestive of residual or recurrent tumor.

Is contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) an alternative to MRI in assessing the response to primary systemic therapy of breast cancer?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessing radiological response to primary systemic therapy (PST).

METHOD

Prospective study between February 2021 and October 2022. Women with breast cancer and indication of PST were enrolled. CEM and MRI were performed before and after PST, and the findings, including size and radiological response pattern, were compared with the size of the residual lesion measured in surgical specimens and its Miller-Payne classification (considered the gold standard). Two of four independent radiologists, with 2 years of CEM experience and 10 years of MRI experience, reviewed the images while being blinded to the results of the other technique. The agreement between measurements was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and Lin's coefficient.

RESULTS

Forty-eight women with breast cancer who required PST were enrolled in the study, with a mean age of 57.21 ± 10.14 years. A total of thirty-three participants (68.75 %) completed the study. The correlation between CEM and MRI measurements was high before PST (r: 0.97), and local staging was identical for 45 out of 48 patients. MRI demonstrated better accuracy in predicting residual tumor size than CEM, with Lin's coefficient 0.91 and 0.73, respectively. However, no significant differences were observed in predicting response to therapy. Both methods tended to overestimate the size and degree of response in our study, with mean overestimations of 2.87 mm in CEM and 0.51 mm in MRI.

CONCLUSION

CEM was found to be as accurate as MRI in predicting response to PST, indicating its potential as an alternative imaging technique, but further research is necessary.

Interpreting contrast imaging to plan breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are more accurate than conventional imaging (CI) for breast cancer staging. How adding CEM and MRI to CI might change the surgical plan is understudied.

METHODS

Surgical plans (breast conserving surgery (BCS), wider BCS, BCS with diagnostic excision (>1BCS), mastectomy) were devised by mock-MDT (radiologist, surgeon and pathology reports) according to disease extent on CI, CI + CEM and CI + MRI. Differences in the mock-MDT's surgical plans following the addition of CEM or MRI were investigated. Using pre-defined criteria, the appropriateness of the modified plans was assessed by comparing estimated disease extent on imaging with final pathology. Surgery performed was recorded from patient records.

RESULTS

Contrast imaging modified mock-MDT plans for 20 of 61(32.8%) breasts. The addition of CEM changed the plan in 16/20 (80%) and MRI in 17/20 breasts (85%). Identical changes were proposed by both CEM and MRI in 13/20 (65%) breasts. The modified surgical plan based on CI + CEM was possibly appropriate for 6/16 (37.5%), and CI + MRI in 9/17, (52.9%) breasts. The surgery performed was concordant with the mock-MDT plan for all 10 patients where the plans could be compared (BCS 1, >1 BCS 2 and mastectomy 7).

CONCLUSION

Adding CEM or MRI to CI changed mock-MDT plans in up to one third of women, but not all were appropriate. Changing surgical plans following addition of contrast imaging to CI without biopsy confirmation could lead to over or under-treatment.

Iopromide for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pertinent Literature

Background

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging modality. Clinical data is scarce.

Objectives

To summarize clinical evidence on the use of iopromide in CEM for the detection or by systematically analyzing the available literature on efficacy and safety.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

Iopromide-specific publications reporting its use in CEM were identified by a systematic search within Bayer's Product Literature Information (PLI) database and by levering a recent review publication. The literature search in PLI was performed up to January 2023. The confirmatory-supporting review publication was based on a MEDLINE/EMBASE + full text search for publications issued between September 2003 and January 2019. Relevant literature was selected based on pre-defined criteria by 2 reviewers. The comparison of CEM vs traditional mammography (XRM) was performed on published results of sensitivity and specificity. Differences in diagnostic parameters were assessed within a meta-analysis.

Results

Literature search: A total of 31 studies were identified reporting data on 5194 patients. Thereof, 19 studies on efficacy and 3 studies on safety. Efficacy: in 11 studies comparing iopromide CEM vs XRM, sensitivity was up to 43% higher (range 1%-43%) for CEM. Differences in specificity were found to be in a range of -4% to 46% for CEM compared with XRM. The overall gain in sensitivity for CEM vs XRM was 7% (95% CI [4%, 11%]) with no statistically significant loss in specificity in any study assessed. In most studies, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were found to be in favor of CEM. In 2 studies comparing CEM with breast magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI), both imaging modalities performed either equally well or CEM tended to show better results with respect to sensitivity and specificity. Safety: eight cases of iopromide-related adverse drug reactions were reported in 1022 patients (0.8%).

Conclusions

Pertinent literature provides evidence for clinical utility of iopromide in CEM for the detection or confirmation of breast cancer. The overall gain in sensitivity for iopromide CEM vs XRM was 7% with no statistically significant loss in specificity.

History of Mammography: Analysis of Breast Imaging Diagnostic Achievements over the Last Century

Breast cancer is the most common forms of cancer and a leading cause of mortality in women. Early and correct diagnosis is, therefore, essential to save lives. The development of diagnostic imaging applied to the breast has been impressive in recent years and the most used diagnostic test in the world is mammography, a low-dose X-ray technique used for imaging the breast. In the first half of the 20th century, the diagnosis was in practice only clinical, with consequent diagnostic delay and an unfavorable prognosis in the short term. The rise of organized mammography screening has led to a remarkable reduction in mortality through the early detection of breast malignancies. This historical review aims to offer a complete panorama of the development of mammography and breast imaging during the last century. Through this study, we want to understand the foundations of the pillar of radiology applied to the breast through to the most modern applications such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), artificial intelligence, and radiomics. Understanding the history of the development of diagnostic imaging applied to the breast can help us understand how to better direct our efforts toward an increasingly personalized and effective diagnostic approach. The ultimate goal of imaging applied to the detection of breast malignancies should be to reduce mortality from this type of disease as much as possible. With this paper, we want to provide detailed documentation of the main steps in the evolution of breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast neoplasms; we also want to open up new scenarios where the possible current and future applications of imaging are aimed at being more precise and personalized.

Background enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): are there qualitative and quantitative differences between imaging systems?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the digital mammography imaging system on overall background enhancement on recombined contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images, the overall background enhancement of two different mammography systems was compared.

METHODS

In a retrospective single-center study, CESM images of n = 129 female patients who underwent CESM between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed independently by two radiologists. Two mammography machines of different manufacturers were compared qualitatively using a Likert-scale from 1 (minimal) to 4 (marked overall background enhancement) and quantitatively by placing a region of interest and measuring the intensity enhancement. Lesion conspicuity was analyzed using a Likert-scale from 1 (lesion not reliably distinguishable) to 5 (excellent lesion conspicuity). A multivariate regression was performed to test for potential biases on the quantitative results.

RESULTS

Significant differences in qualitative background enhancement measurements between machines A and B were observed for both readers (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). The quantitative evaluation showed significant differences in background enhancement with an average difference of 75.69 (99%-CI [74.37, 77.02]; p < 0.001). Lesion conspicuity was better for machine A for the first and second reader respectively (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001). The factor machine was the only influencing factor (p < 0.001). The factors contrast agent, breast density, age, and menstrual cycle could be excluded as potential biases.

CONCLUSION

Mammography machines seem to significantly influence overall background enhancement qualitatively and quantitatively; thus, an impact on diagnostic accuracy appears possible.

KEY POINTS

• Overall background enhancement on CESM differs between different vendors qualitatively and quantitatively. • Our retrospective single-center study showed consistent results of the qualitative and quantitative data analysis of overall background enhancement. • Lesion conspicuity is higher in cases of lower background enhancement on CESM.

Accuracy and precision of contrast enhanced mammography versus MRI for predicting breast cancer size: how "good" are they really?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the accuracy and precision of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) vs MRI to predict the size of biopsy-proven invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

Prospective study, 59 women with invasive breast cancer on needle biopsy underwent CEM and breast MRI. Two breast radiologists read each patient's study, with access limited to one modality. CEM lesion size was measured using low-energy and recombined images and on MRI, the first post-contrast series. Extent of abnormality per quadrant was measured for multifocal lesions. Reference standards were size of largest invasive malignant lesion, invasive (PathInvasive) and whole (PathTotal). Pre-defined clinical concordance ±10 mm.

RESULTS

Mean patient age 56 years, 42 (71%) asymptomatic. Lesions were invasive ductal carcinoma 40 (68%) with ductal carcinoma in situ (31/40) in 78%, multifocal in 12 (20%). Median lesion size was 17 mm (invasive) and 27 mm (total), range (5-125 mm). Lin's concordance correlation coefficients for PathTotal 0.75 (95% CI 0.6, 0.84) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.56, 0.82) for MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) respectively. Mean difference for total size, 3% underestimated and 4% overestimated, and for invasive 41% and 50% overestimate on MRI and CESM respectively. LOAs for PathTotal varied from 60% under to a 2.4 or almost threefold over estimation. MRI was concordant with PathTotal in 36 (64%) cases compared with 32 (57%) for CESM. Both modalities concordant in 26 (46%) cases respectively.

CONCLUSION

Neither CEM nor MRI have sufficient accuracy to direct changes in planned treatment without needle biopsy confirmation.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Despite small mean differences in lesion size estimates using CEM or MRI, the 95% limits of agreement do not meet clinically acceptable levels.

Case report: Uncommon multiple metastases from occult breast cancer revealed by 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT

Occult breast cancer is an uncommon type of breast cancer and its diagnosis is challenging. It is usually invisible on multiple imaging examines. Metastases to the rectum and inguinal lymph nodes from occult breast lobular cancer are even rarer. ⁶⁸Ga-DOTA peptides can image neuroendocrine tumors by targeting specific somatostatin receptors. Besides, other tumors, including breast cancer, have been shown to express somatostatin receptors. In this case, we presented a 63-year-old woman who underwent both ¹⁸F-FDG and ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT due to a rectal polyp. An endoscopic excision biopsy confirmed metastatic carcinoma of suspected breast origin, but subsequent ultrasound and MRI showed no signs of malignancy in the breast and adnexa uteri. PET/CT showed obvious ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE activity in bilateral axillary and right inguinal lymph nodes with mild ¹⁸F-FDG uptake. Final histopathology at the left axillary, right inguinal lymph nodes, and rectum indicated metastases from breast cancer while the origin remained radiologically occult. Additionally, one uterine fibroids was found with positive uptake of ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATATE and negative uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG. This case suggested that ⁶⁸Ga-DOTATAE PET/CT may be an effective supplement in diagnosing OBC lymph node metastases with mild ¹⁸F-FDG uptake, and it may provide a new technology for the clinical diagnosis of occult breast cancer.

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Breast MRI: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI). Like breast MRI, CEM enables tumour visualization by contrast accumulation. CEM seems to be a viable substitute for breast MRI. Methods: This systematic search assessed the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques in women with suspicious breast lesions on prior imaging or physical examination, who have undergone both breast MRI and CEM. CEM had to be performed on a commercially available system. The MRI sequence parameters had to be described sufficiently to ensure that standard breast MRI sequence protocols were used. Pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were estimated using bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for CEM and breast MRI were also constructed. Results: Six studies (607 patients with 775 lesions) met the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 96% for CEM and 97% for breast MRI. Pooled specificity was 77% for both modalities. DOR was 79.5 for CEM and 122.9 for breast MRI. Between-study heterogeneity expressed as the I2 -index was substantial with values over 80%. Conclusion: Pooled sensitivity was high for both CEM and breast MRI, with moderate specificity. The pooled DOR estimates, however, indicate higher overall diagnostic performance of breast MRI compared to CEM. Nonetheless, current scientific evidence is too limited to prematurely discard CEM as an alternative for breast MRI.

Are contrast enhanced mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis equally effective in diagnosing patients recalled from breast cancer screening?

Purpose

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is widely used in breast cancer screening. However, to improve cancer detection rates, new diagnostic tools have been introduced. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are used in the diagnostic setting, however their accuracies need to be compared.The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM and DBT in women recalled from breast cancer screening program.

Methods

The study included 402 consecutive patients recalled from breast cancer screening program, who were randomized into two groups, to undergo either CEM (202 patients) or DBT (200 patients). All visible lesions were evaluated and each suspicious lesion was histopathologically verified.

Results

CEM detected 230 lesions; 119 were classified as benign and 111 as suspicious or malignant, whereas DBT identified 209 lesions; 105 were classified as benign and 104 as suspicious or malignant. In comparison to histopathology, CEM correctly detected cancer in 43 out of 44 cases, and DBT in all 33 cases, while FFDM identified 15 and 18 neoplastic lesions in two groups, respectively. CEM presented with 97% sensitivity, 63% specificity, 70% accuracy, 38% PPV and 99% NPV, while DBT showed 100% sensitivity, 60% specificity, 32%, PPV, 100% NPV and 66% accuracy. The CEM's AUC was 0.97 and DBT's 0.99. The ROC curve analysis proved a significant (p<0.000001) advantage of both CEM and DBT over FFDM, however, there was no significant difference between CEM and DBT diagnostic accuracies (p=0.23).

Conclusions

In this randomized, prospective study CEM and DBT show similar diagnostic accuracy.

Staging Breast Cancer with MRI, the T. A Key Role in the Neoadjuvant Setting

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer among women worldwide. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) indications have expanded from inoperable locally advanced to early-stage breast cancer. Achieving a pathological complete response (pCR) has been proven to be an excellent prognostic marker leading to better disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Although diagnostic accuracy of MRI has been shown repeatedly to be superior to conventional methods in assessing the extent of breast disease there are still controversies regarding the indication of MRI in this setting. We intended to review the complex literature concerning the tumor size in staging, response and surgical planning in patients with early breast cancer receiving NACT, in order to clarify the role of MRI. Morphological and functional MRI techniques are making headway in the assessment of the tumor size in the staging, residual tumor assessment and prediction of response. Radiomics and radiogenomics MRI applications in the setting of the prediction of response to NACT in breast cancer are continuously increasing. Tailored therapy strategies allow considerations of treatment de-escalation in excellent responders and avoiding or at least postponing breast surgery in selected patients.

Diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score in the evaluation of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate whether the Kaiser score (KS) could improve the diagnostic performance of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) in evaluating breast enhancing lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-nine patients with 375 lesions (231 malignant and 144 benign) were included in this retrospective study from April 2019 to December 2021.Two readers with different levels of experience in breast imaging were asked to give a BI-RADS assessment category according to the CEM BI-RADS and final score based on the KS. The diagnostic performance of all lesions, mass and non-mass enhancement (NME) were assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were measured. The weighted kappa coefficients were calculated to investigate the interreader agreement.

RESULTS

The AUCs of the KS for all lesions were 0.915 (95 %CI: 0.884-0.947) and 0.876 (95 %CI: 0.838-0.914) for two readers. When mass and NME were evaluated separately, the AUCs of the KS for mass were higher than those for NME (p < 0.001). The AUCs of BI-RADS for all lesion diagnoses ranged between 0.821 (95 %CI: 0.778-0.864) and 0.842(95 %CI: 0.801-0.883) for two readers. The AUCs of the KS were higher than those of BI-RADS (p < 0.001, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in the sensitivity between the KS (97.4 %) and BI-RADS (99.6 %) for all lesions (p = 0.130). The specificity of the KS was significantly higher than that of BI-RADS (p < 0.001). Compared with BI-RADS, the application of the KS could have potentially obviated 41.7 % to 47.9 % unnecessary biopsies in 144 benign lesions. Interreader agreement between the two readers of the KS was almost perfect (k = 0.883 [95 % CI: 0.842-0.924]).

CONCLUSION

The use of the KS provided a high diagnostic performance in distinguishing malignant and benign breast lesions on CEM and outperformed BI-RADS. The application of the KS can downgrade up to 47.9% of unnecessary biopsies of benign breast lesions.

Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising vascular-based breast imaging technique with high diagnostic performance in detecting breast cancer. Dual-energy acquisition using low and high energy x-ray spectra following intravenous iodinated contrast injection provides both anatomic and functional information in the same examination. The low-energy images are equivalent to standard digital mammography and the post-processed recombined images depict enhancement analogous to contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Thus, CEM has the potential to detect abnormal morphologic features as well as neovascularity associated with breast cancer. Since its emergence in 2011, CEM has consistently demonstrated superior performance compared with standard mammography and mammography plus ultrasound, particularly in women with dense breasts, with high sensitivity approaching that of MRI, supporting its use as a cost-effective diagnostic and screening tool. CEM has been primarily used in the diagnostic setting to evaluate patients with screening abnormalities or with symptomatic breasts, to perform preoperative staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer, and to evaluate response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. More recently, CEM has been performed to screen women who have an intermediate to high lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. In addition to its high diagnostic performance, CEM is less expensive and more accessible than MRI and potentially better tolerated by patients. Minor drawbacks to CEM include a slightly increased radiation dose compared with standard mammography and a low risk for contrast allergy reaction. The aim of this study is to review the background, current literature, and future applications of CEM in breast cancer screening.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) are commonly used in the screening of breast cancer. The present systematic review aimed to summarize, critically analyse, and meta-analyse the available evidence regarding the role of CE-MRI and CEM in the early detection, diagnosis, and preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Methods: The search was performed on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science on 28 July 2021 using the following terms “breast cancer”, “preoperative staging”, “contrast-enhanced mammography”, “contrast-enhanced spectral mammography”, “contrast enhanced digital mammography”, “contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging” “CEM”, “CESM”, “CEDM”, and “CE-MRI”. We selected only those papers comparing the clinical efficacy of CEM and CE-MRI. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 criteria. The pooled sensitivities and specificity of CEM and CE-MRI were computed using a random-effects model directly from the STATA “metaprop” command. The between-study statistical heterogeneity was tested (I²-statistics). Results: Nineteen studies were selected for this systematic review. Fifteen studies (1315 patients) were included in the metanalysis. Both CEM and CE-MRI detect breast lesions with a high sensitivity, without a significant difference in performance (97% and 96%, respectively). Conclusions: Our findings confirm the potential of CEM as a supplemental screening imaging modality, even for intermediate-risk women, including females with dense breasts and a history of breast cancer.

Accuracy of Posttreatment Imaging for Evaluation of Residual in Breast Disease After Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can help downstage certain breast cancers prior to surgical resection. This study measured the accuracy of conventional mammography (MMG), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for assessing breast tumor size in response to NET.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery after NET from 2013 to 2021 were identified. The maximal dimension of residual tumor on imaging was compared with the maximal dimension on final pathology. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (r_c) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r) were used to assess agreement.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients with invasive breast cancer underwent NET, posttreatment imaging, and surgery. Tumor size reported on posttreatment CEM correlated with size on final pathology to within 1 cm in n = 42 (58%) of patients, equivalent to the accuracy of MRI (n = 35, 58%). Size was accurately predicted by US in 54% and in 48% of MMG. Posttreatment imaging tumor size was moderately correlated with final tumor size on pathology CEM (r = 0.49; r_c = 0.38), MRI (r = 0.52; r_c = 0.45), and US (r = 0.41; r_c = 0.28). MMG was weakly correlated (r = 0.21; r_c = 0.16). Similar findings were shown in subgroup analysis; in those who received all four post-NET imaging, CEM and MRI again performed comparably, with r = 0.36 and 0.41, respectively, US (r = 0.43) and MMG (r = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with mammography and US, CEM and MRI had higher accuracy in estimating final tumor size for breast cancers treated with NET. Contrast-enhanced imaging is a helpful adjunct when response to preoperative therapy will impact clinical management.

An approach to dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) using a double layer filter: dosimetric and image quality assessment

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) is a recently developed advanced technique in digital mammography that uses an iodinated intravenous contrast agent to assess tumor angiogenesis. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic potential of DE-CESM recombined images in terms of radiation dose and image quality. A 50% fibroglandular-50% adipose, custom-made phantom with iodine inserts of 1.0 mgI cm^-3, 2.0 mgI cm^-3, 4.0 mgI cm^-3was used for the estimation of mean glandular dose (MGD) and the image quality. Low-energy (LE) images were acquired with the W/Rh, W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu and W/Rh + 0.5 mm Al while high energy images (HE) are acquired with the W/Rh, W/Rh + 0.06 mm Ba, W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu, and W/Rh + 0.03 mm Ce anode filter combinations. The total MGD was reduced up to a maximum from 1.75 mGy to 1.45 mGy by using Rh + 0.01 mm Cu double-layer filter for both LE and HE imaging of 50 mm, standard 50% fibroglandular phantom compared to Rh single-layer filter with W target. The minimum total MGD reduction (1.69 mGy) was observed when Rh + 0.5 mm Al was used for LE and Rh + 0.06 mm Ba was used for HE exposure. The image quality was comparable with the single-layer filter. The use of W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu or W/Rh + 0.5 mm Al as target/filter combination for LE exposure and W/Rh + 0.01 mm Cu for HE exposure can reduce the additional radiation dose delivered by DE-CESM without degrading the image quality.

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.

Impact of preoperative staging with contrast-enhanced mammography for localized breast cancer management

OBJECTIVE

A precise evaluation of the disease extent is mandatory before surgery for early breast cancer (EBC). Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEDM) is a recent technique that may help define adequate surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients referred to a cancer center between November 2016 and July 2017 for biopsy-confirmed invasive EBC management. The primary objective was to evaluate the rate of surgical changes after incorporating the results of the preoperative staging examination, including CEDM.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients were screened for inclusion, and 132 patients were included, corresponding to 134 lesions. The first surgical plan was modified for 33 patients (25%), which represented 34 lesions. For 8 patients (6%), the surgery was cancelled in preference for neoadjuvant chemotherapy; for 16 patients (12.1%), the primary tumor procedure was enlarged; and for 23 patients (17.4%) the lymph node management was modified. Surgery was changed only due to the CEDM results for 24 patients (18.5%) and consisted of a more invasive procedure due to a more extended, multifocal or multicentric lesion than seen on the standard imaging. Anatomopathological surgery piece findings were well correlated with contrast-enhanced mammography results. Overall, there was no increase in the delay between the planned date of surgery and the effective surgical procedure (median 0 days).

CONCLUSION

CEDM added to preoperative staging helped define better surgical management without increasing delay in the surgical procedure.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

CEDM is a reliable technique that should be considered as part of preoperative staging for EBC.

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

OBJECTIVE

Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CE-DBT) is a novel imaging technique, combining contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and tomosynthesis. This may offer an alternative imaging technique to breast MRI for monitoring of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This paper addresses patient experience and preference regarding the two techniques.

METHODS

Conducted as part of a prospective pilot study; patients were asked to complete questionnaires pertaining to their experience of CE-DBT and MRI following pre-treatment and end-of-treatment imaging. Questionnaires consisted of eight questions answered on a categorical scale, two using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and a question to indicate preference of imaging technique. Statistical analysis was performed with Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test for related samples using SPSS v. 25.

RESULTS

18 patients were enrolled in the pilot study. Matched CE-DBT and MRI questionnaires were completed after 22 patient episodes. Patient preference was indicated after 31 patient episodes. Overall, on 77% of occasions patients preferred CE-DBT with no difference between pre-treatment and end-of-treatment imaging. Overall experience (p = 0.008), non-breast pain (p = 0.046), anxiety measured using VAS (p = 0.003), and feeling of being put at ease by staff (p = 0.023) was better for CE-DBT. However, more breast pain was experienced during CE-DBT when measured on both VAS (p = 0.011) and categorical scale (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

Our paper suggests that patients prefer CE-DBT to MRI, adding further evidence in favour of contrast-enhanced mammographic techniques.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Contrast mammographic techniques offer an alternative, more accessible imaging technique to breast MRI. Whilst other studies have addressed patient experience of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, this is the first study to directly explore patient preference for CE-DBT over MRI in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, finding that overall, patients preferred CE-DBT despite the relatively long breast compression.

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.

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.

Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography

Background: Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to outperform standard mammography while performing comparably to contrast-enhanced MRI. Objective: To compare imaging characteristics of false-positive and true-positive findings on CEDM. Methods: This retrospective study included women who underwent baseline screening CEDM between January 2013 and December 2018 assessed as BI-RADS category 0, 3, 4, or 5 and who underwent biopsy with histopathologic diagnosis or had two-year imaging follow-up. Lesion characteristics were extracted from CEDM reports. A true-positive finding was defined as a lesion in which biopsy yielded malignancy. A false-positive finding was defined as a lesion in which biopsy yielded benign or benign high-risk pathology, or two-year imaging follow-up was negative. Results: Of 157 patients (median age, 52 years), 24 had a total of 26 true-positive lesions, and 133 had a total of 147 false-positive lesions. Of the 26 true-positive lesions, 1 (4%) exhibited only a mammographic finding on low-iodine images, 13 (50%) only a contrast finding on iodine images, and 12 (46%) both a mammographic finding on low-energy images and a contrast finding on iodine images. A true-positive result was more likely (p=.02) for lesions present on both low-energy and iodine images (31%) than on low-energy images only (4%) or iodine images only (12%). Among lesions present on both low-energy and iodine images, a true-positive result was more likely (p<.001) when the type of mammographic finding was asymmetry (50%) or calcification (80%) than mass (11%) or distortion (0%). A true-positive result was more likely (p=.01) among those with, versus without, an ultrasound correlate (36% vs 9%), and also more likely (p=.02) among those with, versus without, an MRI correlate (18% vs 2%). Of 25 false-positive calcifications, 24 had no associated mammographic enhancement; of 5 true-positive calcifications, 4 had mammographic enhancement. Conclusion: A low-energy mammographic finding with associated enhancement, or a finding with sonographic or MRI correlate, predicts a true-positive result. Calcifications with associated enhancement had a high malignancy rate. Nonetheless, half of true-positive lesions enhanced on iodine images without a mammographic finding on low-energy images. Clinical impact: These observations inform radiologists' management of abnormalities detected on screening CEDM.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Technique, Indications, and Review of Current Literature

Purpose of Review

To provide an update on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) regarding current technique and interpretation, the performance of this modality versus conventional breast imaging modalities (mammography, ultrasound, and MRI), existing clinical applications, potential challenges, and pitfalls.

Recent Findings

Multiple studies have shown that the low-energy, non-contrast-enhanced images obtained when performing CEM are non-inferior to full-field digital mammography with the added benefit of recombined post-contrast images, which have been shown to provide comparable information compared to MRI without sacrificing sensitivity and negative predictive values. While CEMs' usefulness for further diagnostic characterization of indeterminate breast findings is apparent, additional studies have provided strong evidence of potential roles in screening intermediate to high-risk populations, evaluation of disease extent, and monitoring response to therapy, particularly in patients in whom MRI is either unavailable or contraindicated. Others have shown that some patients prefer CEM over MRI given the ease of performance and patient comfort. Additionally, some health systems may find significantly reduced costs compared to MRI. Currently, CEM is hindered by the limited availability of CEM-guided tissue sampling and issues of intravenous contrast administration. However, commercially available CEM-guided biopsy systems are on the horizon, and small changes in practice workflow can be quickly adopted. As of now, MRI remains a mainstay of high-risk screening, evaluation of the extent of disease, and monitoring response to therapy, but smaller studies have suggested that CEM may be equivalent to MRI for these indications, and larger confirmatory studies are needed.

Summary

CEM is an emerging problem-solving breast imaging modality that provides complementary information to conventional imaging modalities and may potentially be used in place of MRI for specific indications and/or patient populations.

Supplemental Cancer Screening for Women With Dense Breasts: Guidance for Health Care Professionals

Mammography is the standard for breast cancer screening. The sensitivity of mammography in identifying breast cancer, however, is reduced for women with dense breasts. Thirty-eight states have passed laws requiring that all women be notified of breast tissue density results in their mammogram report. The notification includes a statement that differs by state, encouraging women to discuss supplemental screening options with their health care professionals (HCPs). Several supplemental screening tests are available for women with dense breast tissue, but no established guidelines exist to direct HCPs in their recommendation of preferred supplemental screening test. Tailored screening, which takes into consideration the patient's mammographic breast density and lifetime breast cancer risk, can guide breast cancer screening strategies that are more comprehensive. This review describes the benefits and limitations of the various available supplemental screening tests to guide HCPs and patients in choosing the appropriate breast cancer screening.

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: reproducibility compared to pathologic anatomy

PURPOSE

To compare the reproducibility between contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the postsurgical pathologic examination. In addition, the applicability of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of MRI to CEDM was evaluated for mass lesions.

METHODS

A total of 62 patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this study, for a total of 67 lesions. Fifty-nine patients underwent both methods. The reproducibility between MRI vs CEDM and the reference standard (postoperative pathology) was assessed by considering the lesion and breast size as pivotal variables. Reproducibility was evaluated by computing the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Bland-Altman plots were used to depict the observed pattern of agreement as well as to estimate the associated bias. Furthermore, the pattern of agreement between the investigated methods with regard to the breast lesion characterization (i.e. mass/nonmass; shape; margins; internal enhanced characteristics) was assessed by computing the Cohen kappa and its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

The reproducibility between MRI and the reference standard and between CEDM and the reference standard showed substantial agreement, with a CCC value of 0.956 (95% CI, 0.931-0.972) and 0.950 (95% CI, 0.920-0.969), respectively. By looking at the Bland-Altman analysis, bias values of 2.344 and 1.875 mm were observed for MRI and CEDM vs reference evaluation, respectively. The agreement between MRI and CEDM is substantial with a CCC value of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.949-0.981). The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias values of -0.469 mm when comparing CEDM vs MRI. Following the Landis and Koch classification criteria, moderate agreement was observed between the two methods in describing BI-RADS descriptors of mass lesions.

CONCLUSION

CEDM is able to measure and describe tumor masses comparably to MRI and can be used for surgical planning.

Current Status of Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Comprehensive Review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed and updated review of the physics, techniques, indications, limitations, reporting, implementation and management of contrast enhanced mammography.

BACKGROUND

Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), is an emerging iodine-based modified dual energy mammography technique. In addition to having the same advantages as standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM), CEM provides information regarding tumor enhancement, relying on tumor angiogenesis, similar to dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). This article reviews current literature on CEM and highlights considerations that are critical to the successful use of this modality.

CONCLUSION

Multiple studies point to the advantage of using CEM in the diagnostic setting of breast imaging, which approaches that of DCE-MRI.

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography: Comparison With MRI and Mammography

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with MRI and mammography (MG) based on histopathological results.

METHODS

In this IRB-approved study, written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Images from 40 patients (62 lesions) with suspicious findings on US between March 2018 and August 2018 were evaluated. Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of CEM, MRI, and MG were evaluated and compared within a 95% confidence interval. Maximum dimensions of lesions were measured and correlations of results were evaluated with Spearman's Rho test.

RESULTS

In the histopathological analysis, 66% (41/62) of lesions were malignant and 34% (21/62) of lesions were benign. Contrast-enhanced mammography, MRI, and MG had sensitivities of 100% (41/41), 100% (41/41), and 80% (33/41), respectively. The sensitivity of CEM and MRI was significantly better than that of MG (P = 0.03). The NPVs of CEM (100%, 7/7) and MRI (100%, 14/14) were statistically higher than the NPV of MG (60%, 12/20) (P = 0.03). The false-positive rates for CEM, MRI, and MG were 33% (7/21), 66% (14/21), and 42% (9/21), respectively. Contrast-enhanced mammography had a significantly lower false-positive rate than MRI (P < 0.001). Mammography had the highest false-negative rate, missing 19% (8/41) of malignant lesions.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced mammography has similar performance characteristics to MRI and improved performance characteristics relative to MG. In particular, CEM and MRI have similar sensitivity and NPVs and both are superior in each of these metrics to MG.

A Review of Breast Imaging for Timely Diagnosis of Disease

Breast cancer (BC) is the cancer with the highest incidence in women in the world. In this last period, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused in many cases a drastic reduction of routine breast imaging activity due to the combination of various factors. The survival of BC is directly proportional to the earliness of diagnosis, and especially during this period, it is at least fundamental to remember that a diagnostic delay of even just three months could affect BC outcomes. In this article we will review the state of the art of breast imaging, starting from morphological imaging, i.e., mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography, and their most recent evolutions; and ending with functional images, i.e., magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced mammography.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography without and with a delayed image for diagnosing malignancy among mass lesions in dense breast

Aim of the study

To analyse the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) based on morphologic and enhancement patterns of mass lesions in dense breast using different protocols: CESM without delayed image and CESM with delayed image.

Material and methods

A total of 151 informed women with suspicious for malignancy mass lesions in dense breast were included in this study. All of them underwent CESM using 2 protocols. A total of 155 lesions were pathomorphologically verified. We analysed morphologic patterns on low-energy (LE) images and recombined images (RI) by defining the shape, margin, and dynamic patterns based on delayed images.

Results

The comparative analysis revealed that the shape and margins on RI were more significant than those on LE images. The dynamic indicators of CESM were found to be highly significant in dense breasts. The correlation between kinetic curve and histological results demonstrated that a persistent type of curve was common for benign lesions, accounting for 15/22 (68.1%); plateau and washout – for malignant lesions, accounting for 24/89 (26.9%) and 61/89 (68.5%), respectively. Delayed image leads to an increase of specificity up to 12.4%, which is statistically significant. The area under the curve (AUC) in CESM with delayed image is larger than that in CESM without delayed image (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

CESM is sensitive for the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. CESM with delayed image has higher specificity than CESM without delayed image. Delayed images with plateau and washout are typical for malignancy.

Training Radiologists to Interpret Contrast-enhanced Mammography: Toward a Standardized Lexicon

OBJECTIVE

Using terms adapted from the BI-RADS Mammography and MRI lexicons, we trained radiologists to interpret contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and assessed reliability of their description and assessment.

METHODS

A 60-minute presentation on CEM and terminology was reviewed independently by 21 breast imaging radiologist observers. For 21 CEM exams with 31 marked findings, observers recorded background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) (minimal, mild, moderate, marked), lesion type (oval/round or irregular mass, or non-mass enhancement), intensity of enhancement (none, weak, medium, strong), enhancement quality (none, homogeneous, heterogeneous, rim), and BI-RADS assessment category (2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5). "Expert" consensus of 3 other radiologists experienced in CEM was developed. Kappa statistic was used to assess agreement between radiologists and expert consensus, and between radiologists themselves, on imaging feature categories and final assessments. Reproducibility of specific feature descriptors was assessed as fraction of consensus-concordant responses.

RESULTS

Radiologists demonstrated moderate agreement for BPE, (mean kappa, 0.43; range, 0.05-0.69), and lowest reproducibility for "minimal." Agreement was substantial for lesion type (mean kappa, 0.70; range, 0.47-0.93), moderate for intensity of enhancement (mean kappa, 0.57; range, 0.44-0.76), and moderate for enhancement quality (mean kappa, 0.59; range, 0.20-0.78). Agreement on final assessment was fair (mean kappa, 0.26; range, 0.09-0.44), with BI-RADS category 3 the least reproducible. Decision to biopsy (BI-RADS 2-3 vs 4-5) showed moderate agreement with consensus (mean kappa, 0.54; range, -0.06-0.87).

CONCLUSION

With minimal training, agreement for description of CEM findings by breast imaging radiologists was comparable to other BI-RADS lexicons.

Motion Artifact Reduction in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography - A Multireader Study about the Effect of Nonrigid Registration as Motion Correction on Image Quality

PURPOSE

 The technically caused delay between low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions allows motion artifacts in contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography (CEDEM). In this study the effect of motion correction by nonrigid registration on image quality of the recombined images was investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Retrospectively for 354 recombined CEDEM images an additional recombined image was processed from the raw data of LE and HE images using the motion correction algorithm. Five radiologists with many years of experience in breast cancer diagnostic imaging compared side-by-side one conventional processed CEDEM image with the corresponding image processed by the motion correction algorithm. Every pair of images was compared based on six criteria: General image quality (1), sharpness of skin contour (2), reduction of image artifacts (3), sharpness of lesion contour (4), contrast of lesion (5), visibility of lymph nodes (6). These criteria were rated on a Likert scale (improvement: + 1, + 2; deterioration: -1, -2).

RESULTS

 The mean ratings concerning criteria 1-5 showed a superiority of the recombined images processed by the motion correction algorithm. For example, the mean rating of general image quality was 0.86 (95 % CI: 0.78; 0.93). Only the mean rating concerning criterion 6 showed an inferiority of the recombined images processed by the motion correction algorithm (-0.29 (-0.46; -0.13)).

CONCLUSION

 The usage of nonrigid registration for motion correction significantly improves the general image quality and the quality of subordinate criteria on the recombined CEDEM images at the expense of somewhat reduced lymph node visibility in some cases.

KEY POINTS

  · The usage of motion correction in CEDEM improves the general image quality. · Motion correction might have the potential to increase diagnostic accuracy. · Alternative methods of motion artifact reduction are not yet available in clinical practice.

CITATION FORMAT

· Sistermanns M, Kowall B, Hörnig M et al. Motion Artifact Reduction in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography - A Multireader Study about the Effect of Nonrigid Registration as Motion Correction on Image Quality. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2021; 193: 1183 - 1188.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer detection in comparison to synthetic two-dimensional mammography (s2D MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasound examination in females with dense breast with histopathology as the gold-standard.

METHODS

It was a prospective study, where consecutive females presenting to symptomatic breast clinic between April 2019 and June 2020 were evaluated with DBT. Females who were found to have heterogeneously dense (ACR type C) or extremely dense (ACR type D) breast composition detected on s2D MG were further evaluated with high-resolution breast ultrasound and thereafter with CEDM, but before the core biopsy or surgical excision, were included in the study. s2D MG was derived from post-processing reconstruction of DBT data set. Females with pregnancy, renal insufficiency or prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast agent were excluded from the study. Image interpretation was done by two experienced breast radiologists and both were blinded to histological diagnosis.

RESULTS

This study included 166 breast lesions in130 patients with mean age of 45 ± 12 years (age range 24-72 years). There were 87 (52.4%) malignant and 79 (47.6%) benign lesions. The sensitivity of CEDM was 96.5%, significantly higher than synthetic 2D MG (75.6%, p < 0.0001), DBT alone (82.8%, p < 0.0001) and DBT + ultrasound (88.5%, p = 0.0057); specificity of CEDM was 81%, significantly higher than s2D MG (63.3%, p = 0.0002) and comparable to DBT alone (84.4%, p = 0.3586) and DBT + ultrasound (79.7%, p = 0.4135). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was of 0.896 for CEDM, 0.841 for DBT + ultrasound, 0.769 for DBT alone and 0.729 for s2D MG.

CONCLUSION

CEDM is an accurate diagnostic technique for cancer detection in dense breast. CEDM allowed a significantly higher number of breast cancer detection than the s2D MG, DBT alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasonography in females with dense breast.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

CEDM is a promising novel technology with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in females with dense breast in comparison to DBT alone or DBT supplemented with ultrasound.

Occult breast cancer: Where are we at?

Occult breast cancer (OBC) is described as an axillary metastatic carcinoma without detection of a primary breast lesion and is uncommon. Significant advances in breast imaging have occurred since its description, decreasing its incidence. However current management is based upon old studies, with variable clinical, radiological and pathological definitions of OBC. We suggest standardised definitions of OBC to facilitate more homogenous data representation in the literature. This review also discusses the conflicting heterogeneous data and its influence in determining the current management guidelines. We discuss whether the current significant surgical recommendations are necessary and postulate whether they could be safely substituted with less invasive management.

•

Pathological occult breast cancer is defined as no lesion detectable on MRI or pathological breast lesion post-surgery when examined at 5mm slices

•

NAC in OBC may result in the de-escalation of axillary surgery.

•

Current evidence indicates that ALND with ipsilateral breast RT has equivalent outcomes compared to ALND with mastectomy

Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) as a Breast Cancer Risk Factor

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), association between clinical factors and BPE, and between BPE extent and breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 516 women who underwent CESM imaging for screening and diagnostic purposes between 2012 and 2015 in a single center. BPE at CESM images was retrospectively, independently and blindly graded by six experienced radiologists using the following scale: minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. Agreement between readers was estimated using Kendall's W coefficient of concordance. Associations between clinical factors and BPE, and between BPE and breast cancer were examined using generalized estimating equations. Association between BPE and breast cancer was assessed for the whole study group, and for the screening population separately.

RESULTS

Most women underwent CESM for breast cancer screening (424/516, 82.2%). Mean age was 53 years, the majority had dense breasts (50.4-94%, depending on the reviewer), and minimal to mild BPE (75.8-89.9%). A total of 53/516 women had breast cancer. Overall concordance (W) values between the readers were 0.611 for breast density and 0.789 on BPE. Increased breast density and younger age were positive predictors for increased BPE (odds ratio [OR] 4.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32-7.14, p < 0.001; OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.87-4.42, p < 0.001, respectively). Breast radiation therapy was a negative predictor for BPE (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.06-0.31, p < 0.001). Women with increased BPE had increased odds for breast cancer (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.23-4.09, p = 0.008). This result was consistent when screening cases were analyzed separately (OR 6.27, 95% CI 2.38-16.53, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

BPE at CESM was associated with breast density. Women with increased BPE had increased odds for breast cancer, independently of other potential risk factors.

Factors Associated With Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and breast tissue density, menstrual status, endocrine therapy, and risk factors for breast cancer and also to evaluate interreader agreement on classification of BPE on CEM. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Five subspecialty-trained breast radiologists independently and blindly graded tissue density (with fatty tissue and scattered fibroglandular tissue classified as nondense tissue and with heterogeneously dense and extremely dense classified as dense tissue) and BPE (with minimal or mild BPE categorized as low BPE and moderate or marked BPE categorized as high BPE) on CEM examinations performed from 2014 to 2018. Electronic medical charts were reviewed for information on menstrual status, endocrine therapy, history of breast surgery, and other risk factors for breast cancer. Comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test, and Spearman rank correlation. Interreader agreement was estimated using the Fleiss kappa test. RESULTS. A total of 202 patients (mean [± SD] age, 54 ± 10 years; range, 25-84 years) underwent CEM. Tissue density was categorized as fatty in two patients (1%), scattered fibroglandular in 67 patients (33%), heterogeneously dense in 117 patients (58%), and extremely dense in 16 patients (8%). Among the 202 patients, BPE was minimal in 77 (38%), mild in 80 (40%), moderate in 31 (15%), and marked in 14 (7%). Dense breasts, younger age, premenopausal status, no history of endocrine therapy, and no history of breast cancer were significantly associated with high BPE. Among premenopausal patients, no association was found between BPE and time from last menstrual period to CEM. Overall interreader agreement on BPE was moderate (κ = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.42). Interreader agreement on tissue density was substantial (κ = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.69). CONCLUSION. Women with dense breasts, premenopausal status, and younger age are more likely to have greater BPE. Targeting CEM to the last menstrual period is not indicated.

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.

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.

A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer

Background

To identify the performance of contrast‐enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for breast cancer diagnosis by pooling the open published data.

Methods

A systematic review of studies relevant to CESM and MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer were screened in the electronic databases of Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google scholar and CNKI. The methodical quality of the included publications was evaluated by the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies‐2 (QUADAS‐2). The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were pooled and the true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN) and true negative (TN) of the original studies were calculated.

Results

A total of 13 diagnostic publications were identified and included in the meta‐analysis. Of those included, five were retrospective studies and the remaining eight were prospective work. The combined data indicating the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CESM and MRI were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.59–0.71), 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98),and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.46–0.58), respectively. The pooled +LR and –LR for CESM were 2.70 (95% CI: 1.57–4.65), 0.06 (95% CI: 0.04–0.09), and 2.01 (95% CI: 1.78–2.26), 0.08 (95% CI: 0.05–0.11) for MRI, respectively. For the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the pooled results of CESM and MRI were 60.15 (95% CI: 24.72–146.37) and 31.34 (95% CI: 19.61–50.08), respectively. The AUC of the symmetric receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was 0.9794 and 0.9157 for CESM and MRI, respectively, calculated using the Moses model in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Conclusions

Both CESM and MRI are effective methods for the detection of breast cancer with high diagnostic sensitivity. The diagnostic performance of CESM appears to be more effective than MRI.

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.

Correlation Between Enhancement Intensity in Contrast Enhancement Spectral Mammography and Types of Kinetic Curves in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Background

Due to the decreased sensitivity of mammography in glandular breasts, new diagnostic modalities, like contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) have been developed. The aim of this study was to compare qualitative enhancement levels on CESM with type of kinetic enhancement curves on MRI examination.

Material/Methods

Patients qualified for the CESM examination presented some diagnostic doubts – suspected multifocality, multicentricity, or having dense glandular breast tissue. The enhancement level on CESM was described as weak, medium, or strong. Enhancement on achieved MR images was assessed on the basis of enhancement kinetic curves. The level of enhancement on CESM was associated with enhancement curves type on MRI. All lesions detected on CESM and MRI were histopathologically verified.

Results

The study involved 107 lesions diagnosed in 94 patients: 71 lesions (66%) appeared to be infiltrating on histopathological examination, 9 lesions (8%) were non-infiltrating cancers, and 27 lesions (25%) were benign. Data analysis revealed that lesions with wash-out curve on MRI most often presented strong enhancement on CESM, while in lesions with progressive enhancement curve, strong enhancement on CESM was the rarest. The relationship between enhancement level on CESM and curve type on contrast-enhanced MRI depends on the nature of the lesion. The type of MRI curve was found to be associated with enhancement level on CESM.

Conclusions

We compared subjective assessments of contrast enhancement on CESM with enhancement kinetic curves on MRI. The results showed that the level of enhancement on CESM and type of kinetic curves on MRI depends on the lesion type.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: A potential exclusion diagnosis modality in dense breast patients

BACKGROUND

China has an increasing burden of breast cancer. However, with a large population of dense breast patients, the diagnostic efficiency of conventional digital mammography is attenuated.

METHODS

From July 2017 to October 2018, we retrospectively reviewed 397 dense breast patients who underwent contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in West China Hospital. Among them, 53 patients who had both CESM and dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) results and 114 patients who had pathological diagnoses were finally enrolled. All images were reviewed by two independent radiologists according to the 2013 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) with all disagreements handed to an associate professor for final decisions. Correlation analyses between CESM and DCE-MRI were conducted. The diagnostic performance of CESM were investigated.

RESULTS

The kappa value of the BI-RADS scores between CESM and DCE-MRI was 0.607 (P < .001), indicating high correspondence between CESM and DCE-MRI. As for lesion size measurement, moderate correlation (Kendall's tau coefficient: 0.556, P < .001) was detected between CESM and DCE-MRI. Using pathological diagnoses as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of CESM were 82.4%, 96.4%, and 0.894, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CESM demonstrated excellent overall diagnostic accuracy and a moderate correlation in lesion size estimation against DCE-MRI in dense breast patients, supporting it to be an alternative to DCE-MRI in breast cancer detection and diagnosis, especially for exclusion diagnosis.