Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus MR Imaging of the Breast

Breast MR imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are both techniques that employ intravenously injected contrast agent to assess breast lesions. This approach is associated with a very high sensitivity for malignant lesions that typically exhibit rapid enhancement due to the leakiness of neovasculature. CEM may be readily available at the breast imaging department and can be performed on the spot. Breast MR imaging provides stronger enhancement than the x-ray-based techniques and offers higher sensitivity. From a patient perspective, both modalities have their benefits and downsides; thus, patient preference could also play a role in the selection of the imaging technique.

Update on Management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) represents 18% to 25% of all diagnosed breast cancers, and is a noninvasive, nonobligate precursor lesion to invasive cancer. The diagnosis of DCIS represents a wide range of disease, including lesions with both low and high risk of progression to invasive cancer and recurrence. Over the past decade, research on the topic of DCIS has focused on the possibility of tailoring treatment for patients according to their risk for progression and recurrence, which is based on clinicopathologic, biomolecular and genetic factors. These efforts are ongoing, with recently completed and continuing clinical trials spanning the continuum of cancer care. We conducted a review to identify recent advances on the topic of diagnosis, risk stratification and management of DCIS. While novel imaging techniques have increased the rate of DCIS diagnosis, questions persist regarding the optimal management of lesions that would not be identified with conventional methods. Additionally, among trials investigating the potential for omission of surgery and use of active surveillance, 2 trials have completed accrual and 2 clinical trials are continuing to enroll patients. Identification of novel genetic patterns is expanding our potential for risk stratification and aiding our ability to de-escalate radiation and systemic therapies for DCIS. These advances provide hope for tailoring of DCIS treatment in the near future.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

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

Evaluation of architectural distortion with contrast-enhanced mammography

Architectural distortion (AD) is the third most common abnormality detected on mammograms. In the absence of an accurate non-invasive tool to evaluate ADs, clinical management often requires surgical excision for histological diagnosis. This problem is expected to worsen with the growing use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and the resultant increasing detection of ADs. There is therefore a great clinical need for a diagnostic imaging tool to complement non-enhanced mammography for the evaluation of AD. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging method that uses contrast media and the principle of dual-energy subtraction to evaluate vascularity of suspicious breast lesions. CEM, a cost-effective alternative to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), can be used to evaluate AD by juxtaposing CEM images with non-enhanced mammograms for comparison. In this review, the authors aim to provide readers with an overview of the interpretation of AD on CEM using imaging examples. Relevant imaging features of CEM and their respective significance will be matched with information from a literature review. Finally, the authors would like to highlight the added value of CEM in relevant clinical applications in the assessment of AD.

Analysis of dual-energy mammography subtraction technique for the dose and image quality evaluation using 3D-printed breast phantom

This study aimed to quantitatively assess the radiation dose using XR-QA2 and the image quality of the dual-energy subtraction mammography technique on an in-house phantom. The analysis was carried out to investigate the effect of targets/filters on dose value and image quality using an in-house phantom made of PLA + as an object representing compressed breasts. All irradiation parameters were performed in the craniocaudal position with manual mode. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was recorded, followed by the calculation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and modulation transfer function (MTF) for image quality assessment parameters. The results showed that the image quality was accepted at dose levels within the IAEA and BAPETEN tolerance limit for 60 mm equivalent compressed breast using dual-energy mammography. Furthermore, the target/filter (W/Rh) reduced the dose by 1.03 mGy compared to the Mo/Mo and Mo/Rh with an enhancement in image quality. This indicated that the target/filter (W/Rh) combination was optimal due to the image quality improvement obtained with lower MGD.

Impact of Imaging Biomarkers and AI on Breast Cancer Management: A Brief Review

Breast cancer stands out as the most frequently identified malignancy, ranking as the fifth leading cause of global cancer-related deaths. The American College of Radiology (ACR) introduced the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) as a standard terminology facilitating communication between radiologists and clinicians; however, an update is now imperative to encompass the latest imaging modalities developed subsequent to the 5th edition of BI-RADS. Within this review article, we provide a concise history of BI-RADS, delve into advanced mammography techniques, ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), PET/CT images, and microwave breast imaging, and subsequently furnish comprehensive, updated insights into Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI), diagnostic imaging biomarkers, and the assessment of treatment responses. This endeavor aims to enhance radiologists' proficiency in catering to the personalized needs of breast cancer patients. Lastly, we explore the augmented benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) applications in segmenting, detecting, and diagnosing breast cancer, as well as the early prediction of the response of tumors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). By assimilating state-of-the-art computer algorithms capable of deciphering intricate imaging data and aiding radiologists in rendering precise and effective diagnoses, AI has profoundly revolutionized the landscape of breast cancer radiology. Its vast potential holds the promise of bolstering radiologists' capabilities and ameliorating patient outcomes in the realm of breast cancer management.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography Artifacts and Pitfalls: Tips and Tricks to Avoid Misinterpretation

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) involves addition of intravenous iodinated contrast material at digital mammography, thus increasing the ability to detect breast cancer owing to tumor contrast enhancement. After image acquisition, interpretation includes careful assessment of the technique, artifacts, and pitfalls and reporting with a standard lexicon category and appropriate follow-up recommendations. Artifacts and pitfalls that may cause image misinterpretation should be detected and distinguished from pathologic conditions. Different artifacts apparent on CEM images are usually caused during image acquisition and include CEM-specific and contrast agent-related artifacts, apart from the typical digital mammography artifacts. The pitfalls are related to technical and diagnostic difficulties. One disadvantage of CEM that MRI does not have is a technical factor related to a mammography technique that consists of blind spots that may not be included in the imaging field of mammography views, including the axilla, medial region of the breast, or areas close to the breast wall. Normal breast tissue enhancement called background parenchymal enhancement is also present at CEM and may affect interpretation performance. Diagnostic pitfalls are caused by minimally enhancing lesions, such as invasive lobular carcinomas and mucinous carcinomas, which are difficult to detect with CEM, resulting in false-negative findings. Benign lesions can show enhancement at CEM and represent false-positive lesions that should also be recognized. The authors discuss image interpretation of CEM studies and focus on the artifacts and pitfalls that may be encountered. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Imaging Characteristics of and Multidisciplinary Management Considerations for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Flat Epithelial Atypia: Review of Current Literature

High-risk lesions of the breast are frequently encountered in percutaneous biopsy specimens. While benign, these lesions have historically undergone surgical excision due to their potential to be upgraded to malignancy. However, there is emerging evidence that a tailored management approach should be considered to reduce overtreatment of these lesions. Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) are two of the most commonly encountered high-risk lesions. FEA has been shown to have a relatively low rate of progression to malignancy, and some guidelines are now recommending observation over routine excision in select cases. Selective observation may be reasonable in cases where the target lesion is small and completely removed at biopsy and when there are no underlying risk factors, such as a history of breast cancer or genetic mutation or concurrent ADH. ADH has the highest potential upgrade rate to malignancy of all the high-risk lesions. Most society guidelines continue to recommend surgical excision of this lesion. More recently, some literature suggests that ADH lesions that appear completely removed at biopsy, involve limited foci (less than two or three) with no necrosis or significant atypia, manifest as a small group of mammographic calcifications, or demonstrate no enhancement at MRI may be reasonable for observation. Ultimately, management of all high-risk lesions must be based on a multidisciplinary approach that considers all patient, radiologic, clinical, and histopathologic factors. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Comparative Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography, Abbreviated Breast MRI, and Standard Breast MRI for Breast Cancer Screening

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and abbreviated breast MRI (ABMRI) are emerging alternatives to standard MRI for supplemental breast cancer screening. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of CEM, ABMRI, and standard MRI. Materials and Methods This single-institution, prospective, blinded reader study included female participants referred for breast MRI from January 2018 to June 2021. CEM was performed within 14 days of standard MRI; ABMRI was produced from standard MRI images. Two readers independently interpreted each CEM and ABMRI after a washout period. Examination-level performance metrics calculated were recall rate, cancer detection, and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations and sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation. Bootstrap and permutation tests were used to calculate 95% CIs and compare modalities. Results Evaluated were 492 paired CEM and ABMRI interpretations from 246 participants (median age, 51 years; IQR, 43-61 years). On 49 MRI scans with lesions recommended for biopsy, nine lesions showed malignant pathology. No differences in ABMRI and standard MRI performance were identified. Compared with standard MRI, CEM demonstrated significantly lower recall rate (14.0% vs 22.8%; difference, -8.7%; 95% CI: -14.0, -3.5), lower false-positive biopsy recommendation rate per 1000 examinations (65.0 vs 162.6; difference, -97.6; 95% CI: -146.3, -50.8), and higher specificity (87.8% vs 80.2%; difference, 7.6%; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.1). Compared with standard MRI, CEM had significantly lower cancer detection rate (22.4 vs 36.6; difference, -14.2; 95% CI: -28.5, -2.0) and sensitivity (61.1% vs 100%; difference, -38.9%; 95% CI: -66.7, -12.5). The performance differences between CEM and ABMRI were similar to those observed between CEM and standard MRI. Conclusion ABMRI had comparable performance to standard MRI and may support more efficient MRI screening. CEM had lower recall and higher specificity compared with standard MRI or ABMRI, offset by lower cancer detection rate and sensitivity compared with standard MRI. These trade-offs warrant further consideration of patient population characteristics before widespread screening with CEM. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03517813 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Chang in this issue.

How to Recognize and Correct Artifacts on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as an important new technology in breast imaging. It can demonstrate a number of imaging artifacts that have the potential to limit interpretation by either obscuring or potentially mimicking disease. Commonly encountered artifacts on CEM include patient motion artifacts (ripple and misregistration), pectoral highlighting artifact, breast implant artifact, halo artifact, corrugation artifact, cloudy fat artifact, contrast artifacts (retention and contamination), skin artifacts (skin line enhancement and skin overexposure), and skin lesions. Skin lesions may demonstrate a variety of imaging appearances and have both benign and malignant etiologies. It is important that the technologist, radiologist, and physicist be aware of potential artifacts and skin enhancement on CEM that may affect interpretation and understand their causes and potential solutions.

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

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

Contrast-enhanced Mammography-guided Biopsy: Initial Trial and Experience

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate lesion visibility and radiologist confidence during contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy.

METHODS

Women with BI-RADS ≥4A enhancing breast lesions were prospectively recruited for 9-g vacuum-assisted CEM-guided biopsy. Breast density, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), lesion characteristics (enhancement and conspicuity), radiologist confidence (scale 1-5), and acquisition times were collected. Signal intensities in specimens were analyzed. Patient surveys were collected.

RESULTS

A cohort of 28 women aged 40-81 years (average 57) had 28 enhancing lesions (7/28, 25% malignant). Breast tissue was scattered (10/28, 36%) or heterogeneously dense (18/28, 64%) with minimal (12/28, 43%), mild (7/28, 25%), or moderate (9/28, 32%) BPE on CEM. Twelve non-mass enhancements, 11 masses, 3 architectural distortions, and 2 calcification groups demonstrated weak (12/28, 43%), moderate (14/28, 50%), or strong (2/28, 7%) enhancement. Specimen radiography demonstrated lesion enhancement in 27/28 (96%). Radiologists reported complete lesion removal on specimen radiography in 8/28 (29%). Average time from contrast injection to specimen radiography was 18 minutes (SD = 5) and, to post-procedure mammogram (PPM), 34 minutes (SD = 10). Contrast-enhanced mammography PPM was performed in 27/28 cases; 13/19 (68%) of incompletely removed lesions on specimen radiography showed residual enhancement; 6/19 (32%) did not. Across all time points, average confidence was 2.2 (SD = 1.2). Signal intensities of enhancing lesions were similar to iodine. Patients had an overall positive assessment.

CONCLUSION

Lesion enhancement persisted through PPM and was visible on low energy specimen radiography, with an average "confident" score. Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided breast biopsy is easily implemented clinically. Its availability will encourage adoption of CEM.

Contrast enhanced mammography: focus on frequently encountered benign and malignant diagnoses

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is becoming a widely adopted modality in breast imaging over the past few decades and exponentially so over the last few years, with strong evidence of high diagnostic performance in cancer detection. Evidence is also growing indicating comparative performance of CEM to MRI in sensitivity with fewer false positive rates. As application of CEM ranges from potential use in screening dense breast populations to staging of known breast malignancy, increased familiarity with the modality and its implementation, and disease processes encountered becomes of great clinical significance. This review emphasizes expected normal findings on CEM followed by a focus on examples of the commonly encountered benign and malignant pathologies on CEM.

Imaging Surveillance Options for Individuals With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Annual surveillance mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors on the basis of observational studies and meta-analyses showing reduced breast cancer mortality and improved quality of life. However, breast cancer survivors are at higher risk of subsequent breast cancer and have a fourfold increased risk of interval breast cancers compared with individuals without a personal history of breast cancer. Supplemental surveillance modalities offer increased cancer detection compared with mammography alone, but utilization is variable, and benefits must be balanced with possible harms of false-positive findings. In this review, we describe the current state of mammographic surveillance, summarize evidence for supplemental surveillance in breast cancer survivors, and explore a risk-based approach to selecting surveillance imaging strategies. Further research identifying predictors associated with increased risk of interval second breast cancers and development of validated risk prediction tools may help physicians and patients weigh the benefits and harms of surveillance breast imaging and decide on a personalized approach to surveillance for improved breast cancer outcomes.

Use of Diagnostic Imaging Modalities in Modern Screening, Diagnostics and Management of Breast Tumours 1st Central-Eastern European Professional Consensus Statement on Breast Cancer

Breast radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists updated their previous recommendation/guidance at the 4th Hungarian Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in Kecskemét. A recommendation is hereby made that breast tumours should be screened, diagnosed and treated according to these guidelines. These professional guidelines include the latest technical developments and research findings, including the role of imaging methods in therapy and follow-up. It includes details on domestic development proposals and also addresses related areas (forensic medicine, media, regulations, reimbursement). The entire material has been agreed with the related medical disciplines.

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.

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. The purpose of our study was 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 a 2-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 in which 2-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, one (4%) exhibited only a mammographic finding on low-iodine images, 13 (50%) exhibited only a contrast finding on iodine images, and 12 (46%) exhibited 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 images 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 an asymmetry (46%) or calcification (80%) than a mass (11%) or distortion (0%). A true-positive result was more likely (p = .01) among those with, versus those without, an ultrasound correlate (36% vs 9%) and also was more likely (p = .02) among those with, versus those without, an MRI correlate (18% vs 2%). Of 25 false-positive calcifications, 24 had no associated mammographic enhancement; of five true-positive calcifications, four had mammographic enhancement. CONCLUSION. A low-energy mammographic finding with associated enhancement or a finding with a 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.

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.

Cancer Conspicuity on Low-energy Images of Contrast-enhanced Mammography Compared With 2D Mammography

OBJECTIVE

Low-energy (LE) images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) have been shown to be noninferior to digital mammography. However, our experience is that LE images are superior to 2D mammography. Our purpose was to compare cancer appearance on LE to 2D images.

METHODS

In this IRB-approved retrospective study, seven breast radiologists evaluated 40 biopsy-proven cancer cases on craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) LE images and recent 2D images for cancer visibility, confidence in margins, and conspicuity of findings using a Likert scale. Objective measurements were performed using contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) estimated from regions of interest placed on tumor and background parenchyma. Reader agreement was evaluated using Fleiss kappa. Per-reader comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon test and overall comparisons used three-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Low-energy images showed improved performance for visibility (CC LE 4.0 vs 2D 3.5, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.7 vs 2D 3.5, P = 0.01), confidence in margins (CC LE 3.2 vs 2D 2.8, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.1 vs 2D 2.9, P < 0.008), and conspicuity compared to tissue density compared to 2D mammography (CC LE 3.6 vs 2D 3.2, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.5 vs 2D 3.2, P < 0.001). The average CNR was significantly higher for LE than for digital mammography (CC 2.1 vs 3.2, P < 0.001 and MLO 2.1 vs 3.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that cancers may be better visualized on the LE CEM images compared with the 2D digital mammogram.

Fat necrosis: A consultant's conundrum

Fat necrosis of the breast is a benign non-suppurative inflammation of the adipose tissue and often mimics breast cancers, posing a diagnostic challenge for the clinician and radiologist. It has a myriad of appearances on different imaging techniques, ranging from the pathognomic oil cyst and benign dystrophic calcifications to indeterminate focal asymmetries, architectural distortions, and masses. A combination of different modalities can assist a radiologist in reaching a logical conclusion to avoid unnecessary interventions. The aim of this review article was to provide a comprehensive literature on the various imaging appearances of fat necrosis in the breast. Although a purely benign entity, the imaging appearances on mammography, contrast-enhanced mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging can be quite misleading, especially in post-therapy breasts. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive and all-inclusive review on fat necrosis with a proposed algorithm allowing a systematic approach to diagnosis.

Enhancement Patterns in Contrast Mammography - A Pictorial Essay

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a new technology in breast imaging and cancer detection. It has been shown to have a comparable performance to breast MRI. Currently, there is no independent BI-RADS lexicon available for CEM. This pictorial essay will demonstrate the use of breast MRI descriptors according to the BI-RADS breast MRI lexicon, to describe enhancement patterns for recombined CEM images. The authors recommend using enhancement pattern descriptors already in use for breast MRI when reporting CEM studies, to promote uniformity of interpretation and reporting.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: successful initial clinical institute experience

Background

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a relatively newly developed advanced application with modification of digital mammography by the use of a contrast agent, but still has little known efficacy among Egyptian patients. Our aim in this study is to share our initial experience in evaluating symptomatic patients with different ACR breast parenchyma especially in dense breast parenchyma as it is always challenging in diagnosis.

Results

CESM in this study gave a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 85% in characterization of benign and malignant lesions. For postoperative cases, sensitivity was 85% and specificity was 60%. For chemotherapy cases, sensitivity was 85% and specificity was 76%. Contrast uptake was noted in 68% of masses. Cavitary benign lesions were noted in 22.1% of cases. Multifocal and multicentric carcinomas were detected in 39.7% of pathologically proved malignant masses. Statistical analysis revealed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 82.9%, 76.5%, and 81.0% for conventional mammograms as compared to 92.7%, 82.4%, and 89.7% for CESM respectively.

Conclusion

CESM is a promising technique that can enhance the specificity of conventional mammograms. It is an easy, simple, and rapid contrast-based procedure, especially for characterization of lesions in dense breast parenchyma. It performs proper diagnosis for high-risk patients and follow-up response to different lines of management.

Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a combination of standard mammography and iodinated contrast material administration. During the last decade, CEM has found its place in breast imaging protocols: after i.v. administration of iodinated contrast material, low-energy and high-energy images are retrieved in one acquisition using a dual-energy technique, and a recombined image is constructed enabling visualisation of areas of contrast uptake. The increased incorporation of CEM into everyday clinical practice is reflected in the installation of dedicated equipment worldwide, the (commercial) availability of systems from different vendors, the number of CEM examinations performed, and the number of scientific articles published on the subject. It follows that ever more radiologists will be confronted with this technique, and thus be required to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field. Most importantly, radiologists must have sufficient knowledge on how to interpret CEM images and be acquainted with common artefacts and pitfalls. This comprehensive review provides a practical overview of CEM technique, including CEM-guided biopsy; reading, interpretation and structured reporting of CEM images, including the accompanying learning curve, CEM artefacts and interpretation pitfalls; indications for CEM; disadvantages of CEM; and future developments.

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.

Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer

PURPOSE

To compare preoperative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DM + DBT) in detecting breast cancer (BC) and assessing its size.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively included 78 patients with histological diagnosis of BC who underwent preoperative DM, DBT, and CEM over one year. Four readers, blinded to pathology and clinical information, independently evaluated DM + DBT versus CEM to detect BC and measure its size. Readers' experience ranged 3-10 years. We calculated the per-lesion cancer detection rate (CDR) and the complement of positive predictive value (1-PPV) of both methods, stratifying analysis on the total of lesions, index lesions, and additional lesions. The agreement in assessing cancer size versus pathology was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

100 invasive BCs (78 index lesions and 22 additional lesions) were analyzed. Compared to DM + DBT, CEM showed higher overall CDR in less experienced readers (range 0.85-0.90 vs. 0.95-0.96), and higher CDR for additional lesions, regardless of the reader (range 0.54-0.68 vs. 0.77-0.86). CEM increased the detection of additional disease in dense breasts in all readers and non-dense breasts in less experienced readers only. The 1-PPV of CEM (range 0.10-0.18) was comparable to that of DM + DBT (range 0.09-0.19). At Bland-Altman analysis, DM + DBT and CEM showed comparable mean differences and limits of agreement in respect of pathologic cancer size.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CEM improved the detection of additional cancer lesions compared to DM + DBT, particularly in dense breasts. CEM and DM + DBT achieved comparable performance in cancer size assessment.

Diagnostic performance of perilesional radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions

OBJECTIVE

To conduct perilesional region radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) images to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent CEM from November 2017 to February 2020. Lesion contours were manually delineated. Perilesional regions were automatically obtained. Seven regions of interest (ROIs) were obtained for each lesion, including the lesion ROI, annular perilesional ROIs (1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm), and lesion + perilesional ROIs (1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm). Overall, 4,098 radiomics features were extracted from each ROI. Datasets were divided into training and testing sets (1:1). Seven classification models using features from the seven ROIs were constructed using LASSO regression. Model performance was assessed by the AUC with 95% CI.

RESULTS

Overall, 190 women with 223 breast lesions (101 benign; 122 malignant) were enrolled. In the testing set, the annular perilesional ROI of 3-mm model showed the highest AUC of 0.930 (95% CI: 0.882-0.977), followed by the annular perilesional ROI of 1 mm model (AUC = 0.929; 95% CI: 0.881-0.978) and the lesion ROI model (AUC = 0.909; 95% CI: 0.857-0.961). A new model was generated by combining the predicted probabilities of the lesion ROI and annular perilesional ROI of 3-mm models, which achieved a higher AUC in the testing set (AUC = 0.940).

CONCLUSIONS

Annular perilesional radiomics analysis of CEM images is useful for diagnosing breast cancers. Adding annular perilesional information to the radiomics model built on the lesion information may improve the diagnostic performance.

KEY POINTS

• Radiomics analysis of the annular perilesional region of 3 mm in CEM images may provide valuable information for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. • The radiomics information from the lesion region and the annular perilesional region may be complementary. Combining the predicted probabilities of the models constructed by the features from the two regions may improve the diagnostic performance of radiomics models.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Guide to Setting Up a New Clinical Program

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

Radiomic Feature Reduction Approach to Predict Breast Cancer by Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Images

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is an advanced instrument for breast care that is still operator dependent. The aim of this paper is the proposal of an automated system able to discriminate benign and malignant breast lesions based on radiomic analysis. We selected a set of 58 regions of interest (ROIs) extracted from 53 patients referred to Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" of Bari (Italy) for the breast cancer screening phase between March 2017 and June 2018. We extracted 464 features of different kinds, such as points and corners of interest, textural and statistical features from both the original ROIs and the ones obtained by a Haar decomposition and a gradient image implementation. The features data had a large dimension that can affect the process and accuracy of cancer classification. Therefore, a classification scheme for dimension reduction was needed. Specifically, a principal component analysis (PCA) dimension reduction technique that includes the calculation of variance proportion for eigenvector selection was used. For the classification method, we trained three different classifiers, that is a random forest, a naïve Bayes and a logistic regression, on each sub-set of principal components (PC) selected by a sequential forward algorithm. Moreover, we focused on the starting features that contributed most to the calculation of the related PCs, which returned the best classification models. The method obtained with the aid of the random forest classifier resulted in the best prediction of benign/malignant ROIs with median values for sensitivity and specificity of 88.37% and 100%, respectively, by using only three PCs. The features that had shown the greatest contribution to the definition of the same were almost all extracted from the LE images. Our system could represent a valid support tool for radiologists for interpreting CESM images.

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.

Current Status and Future of BI-RADS in Multimodality Imaging, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems

BI-RADS is a communication and data tracking system that has evolved since its inception as a brief mammography lexicon and reporting guide into a robust structured reporting platform and comprehensive quality assurance tool for mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. Consistent and appropriate use of the BI-RADS lexicon terminology and assessment categories effectively communicates findings, estimates the risk of malignancy, and provides management recommendations to patients and referring clinicians. The impact of BI-RADS currently extends internationally through six language translations. A condensed version has been proposed to facilitate a phased implementation of BI-RADS in resource-constrained regions. The primary advance of the 5th edition of BI-RADS is harmonization of the lexicon terms across mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. Harmonization has also been achieved across these modalities for the reporting structure, assessment categories, management recommendations, and data tracking system. Areas for improvement relate to certain common findings that lack lexicon descriptors and a need for further clarification of proper use of category 3. BI-RADS is anticipated to continue to evolve for application to a range of emerging breast imaging modalities.

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in comparison with sonomammography for characterization of focal asymmetries

Background

Mammographic focal asymmetry represents normal breast tissue, benign, or malignant lesions. Accurate characterization is important for better management. The study evaluates diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) for characterization of focal asymmetries seen in 2D mammography.

Results

The study was done prospectively on 38 females among 360 patients who underwent baseline sonomammographic assessment for diagnostic and screening purposes. Complementary ultrasound was performed only when a finding was detected in cases of screening mammograms. Focal asymmetries were evaluated according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon 2013. CEDM was performed and followed by ultrasound (US) guided core biopsy for solid lesions or aspiration for cystic lesions. CEDM processing resulted in recombined image showing enhancing abnormality. Low energy image and recombined image findings were analyzed blindly and classified into focus enhancement, mass enhancement, non-mass enhancement, and non-enhanced lesions. CEDM and sonomammography findings were compared regarding pathological probability and multiplicity. Histopathology was the reference standard.

Mass enhancement showed strong correlation with malignant pathology. Non-mass enhancement showed no correlation with particular pathology. All non-enhanced focal asymmetries were benign in pathology or normal tissue. Rim enhancement needed second look ultrasound evaluation. CEDM was superior to sonomammography with higher sensitivity (77.8%, 65.7% respectively), NPV (0.8, 0.6), accuracy (0.6, 0.2) but lower specificity (81.8% vs. 100%). Multiplicity detection by CEDM was 26.3% and by sonomammography was 10.5%.

Conclusion

CEDM is more accurate than sonomammography in determination of normal tissue, benign, or malignant lesions in cases of mammographic focal asymmetry. CEDM is more accurate in detection of multiplicity. Undesired biopsies were avoidable with proper management of suspicious and malignant lesions.

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

Background

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Breast cancer, screening and diagnostic tools: All you need to know

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies among women worldwide. Methods for screening and diagnosis allow health care professionals to provide personalized treatments that improve the outcome and survival. Scientists and physicians are working side-by-side to develop evidence-based guidelines and equipment to detect cancer earlier. However, the lack of comprehensive interdisciplinary information and understanding between biomedical, medical, and technology professionals makes innovation of new screening and diagnosis tools difficult. This critical review gathers, for the first time, information concerning normal breast and cancer biology, established and emerging methods for screening and diagnosis, staging and grading, molecular and genetic biomarkers. Our purpose is to address key interdisciplinary information about these methods for physicians and scientists. Only the multidisciplinary interaction and communication between scientists, health care professionals, technical experts and patients will lead to the development of better detection tools and methods for an improved screening and early diagnosis.

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.

Breast mass assessment on chest CT: Axial, sagittal, coronal or maximal intensity projection?

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this work is to determine the optimal projection to detect breast masses on Chest CT.

METHODS

Institutional Review Board (HIPPA compliant) approval was obtained with a waiver of consent. 10 image pairs of Chest CT images containing breast masses were selected for review by 10 chest radiologists: the pairs consisted of axial, sagittal, coronal and axial MIP images (MIP images) with each projection compared to a MIP and with one another. For each pair, the image where the mass was most conspicuous was recorded.

RESULTS

MIPs were preferred to any cross sectional projection 82% of the time; sagittal (63%) or coronal (63%) images were preferred to the axial projection. When sagittal and coronal images were compared there was no preference.

CONCLUSIONS

MIP images should be obtained and reviewed for breast pathology; sagittal or coronal projections may provide additional information.

Quantitative Analysis of Enhancement Intensity and Patterns on Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography

CESM is an emerging digital mammography technology with a high breast cancer detection and a limited diagnostic specificity. In order to improve specificity, we quantitatively assessed enhancement intensity of breast lesions with different pathological types and hormonal receptor status and evaluated the consistency of enhancement patterns between CESM and DCE-MRI. A total of 145 lesions were enrolled, consisting of 43 malignant (17 non-infiltrating cancers and 26 infiltrating cancers) and 99 benign lesions. The diagnostic performance of enhancement intensity in the former positions was significantly higher than that in the latter positions (AUC: 0.834 vs. 0.755, p = 0.0008). Infiltrating cancers showed the highest enhancement intensity, while benign lesions the lowest (mean CNR₁: 7.6% vs. 2.7%; median CNR₁: 6.8% vs. 2.7%). Enhancement intensity of ER or PR positive group was weaker than negative group, while HER-2 positive group was stronger than negative group. 28 patients with 28 lesions performed both CESM and DCE-MRI examinations, showing a coincidence rate of 64.2% and moderate agreement (k = 0.515) between CESM and DCE-MRI. In conclusion, quantitative analysis of enhancement characteristics is feasible to the diagnosis practice on CESM.

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.

Multiple Bilateral Circumscribed Breast Masses Detected at Imaging: Review of Evidence for Management Recommendations

OBJECTIVE. Historically, management recommendations for multiple bilateral circumscribed breast masses encountered with breast imaging have varied. This article reviews the evidence and provides best-practice recommendations for managing these masses. CONCLUSION. Meticulous imaging technique and interpretation are required to correctly diagnose multiple bilateral circumscribed breast masses. Radiologists should classify such masses identified at mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, or bilateral whole-breast sonography as benign and recommend annual follow-up. Elucidating the significance of these masses on MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography, or nuclear breast imaging requires further study.