Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Screening for Intermediate-Risk Women With a History of Lobular Neoplasia

Participation in a High-Risk Program Is Associated with a Diagnosis of Earlier-Stage Disease Among Women at Increased Risk for Breast Cancer Development

BACKGROUND

High-risk programs provide recommendations for surveillance/risk reduction for women at elevated risk for breast cancer development. This study evaluated the impact of high-risk surveillance program participation on clinicopathologic breast cancer features at the time of diagnosis.

METHODS

Women followed in the authors' high-risk program (high-risk cohort [HRC]) with a diagnosis of breast cancer from January 2015 to June 2021 were identified and compared with the general population of women undergoing breast cancer surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK; general cohort [GC]) during the same period. Patient and tumor factors were collected. Clinicopathologic features were compared between the two cohorts and in a subset of women with a family history of known BRCA mutation.

RESULTS

The study compared 255 women in the HRC with 9342 women in the GC. The HRC patients were slightly older and more likely to be white and have family history than the GC patients. The HRC patients also were more likely to present with DCIS (41 % vs 23 %; p < 0.001), to have smaller invasive tumors (pT1: 100 % vs 77 %; p < 0.001), and to be pN0 (95 % vs 81 %; p < 0.001). The HRC patients had more invasive triple-negative tumors (p = 0.01) and underwent less axillary surgery (p < 0.001), systemic therapy (p < 0.001), and radiotherapy (p = 0.002). Among those with a known BRCA mutation, significantly more women in the HRC underwent screening mammography (75 % vs 40 %; p < 0.001) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI: 82 % vs 9.9 %; p < 0.001) in the 12 months before diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Women followed in a high-risk screening program have disease diagnosed at an earlier stage and therefore require less-intensive breast cancer treatment than women presenting to a cancer center at the time of diagnosis. Identification of high-risk women and implementation of increased surveillance protocols are vital to improving outcomes.

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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update

Early detection of breast cancer from regular screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Multiple different imaging modalities may be used to screen for breast cancer. Screening recommendations differ based on an individual's risk of developing breast cancer. Numerous factors contribute to breast cancer risk, which is frequently divided into three major categories: average, intermediate, and high risk. For patients assigned female at birth with native breast tissue, mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis are the recommended method for breast cancer screening in all risk categories. In addition to the recommendation of mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in high-risk patients, screening with breast MRI is recommended. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Association of breast cancer with quantitative mammographic density measures for women receiving contrast-enhanced mammography

Women with high mammographic density have an increased risk of breast cancer. They may be offered contrast-enhanced mammography to improve breast cancer screening performance. Using a cohort of women receiving contrast-enhanced mammography, we evaluated whether conventional and modified mammographic density measures were associated with breast cancer. Sixty-six patients with newly diagnosed unilateral breast cancer were frequency matched on the basis of age to 133 cancer-free control individuals. On low-energy craniocaudal contrast-enhanced mammograms (equivalent to standard mammograms), we measured quantitative mammographic density using CUMULUS software at the conventional intensity threshold ("Cumulus") and higher-than-conventional thresholds ("Altocumulus," "Cirrocumulus"). The measures were standardized to enable estimation of odds ratio per adjusted standard deviation (OPERA). In multivariable logistic regression of case-control status, only the highest-intensity measure (Cirrocumulus) was statistically significantly associated with breast cancer (OPERA = 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.04 to 1.89). Conventional Cumulus did not contribute to model fit. For women receiving contrast-enhanced mammography, Cirrocumulus mammographic density may better predict breast cancer than conventional quantitative mammographic density.

State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technology with promise for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and procedural guidance. However, best uses of CEM in comparison with other breast imaging modalities such as tomosynthesis, ultrasound, and MRI remain inconclusive in many clinical settings. This review article summarizes recent peer-reviewed literature, emphasizing retrospective reviews, prospective clinical trials, and meta-analyses published from 2020 to 2023. The intent of this article is to supplement prior comprehensive reviews and summarize the current state-of-the-art of CEM.

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.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) compared to Breast Magnetic Resonance (MRI) in the evaluation of breast lobular neoplasia

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic performance (detection, assessment of correct disease extent and multifocality/centricity) of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Versus Breast Magnetic Resonance (MRI) in the study of lobular neoplasms.

METHODS

We retrospectively selected all the patients who underwent surgery for a lobular breast neoplasm, either an in situ or an invasive tumor, and had undergone both breast CEM and MRI examinations during the pre-surgical planning. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed to assess the differences between size measurements using the different methods and the post-surgical pathological measurements, considered the gold standard. The agreement in identifying multifocality/multicentricity among the different methods and the pathology was assessed using the Kappa statistics.

RESULTS

We selected 19 patients, of which one presented a bilateral neoplasm. Then, the images of these 19 patients were analyzed, for a total of 52 malignant breast lesions. We found no significant differences between the post-surgical pathological size of the lesions and the calculated size with CEM and MRI (p-value of the difference respectively 0.71 and 0.47). In all 20 cases, neoplasm detection was possible both with CEM and MRI. CEM and MRI showed an excellent ability to identify multifocal and multicentric cases (K statistic equal to 0.93 for both the procedures), while K statistic was 0.11 and 0.59 for FFDM and US, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that CEM is a reliable imaging technique in the preoperative setting of patients with lobular neoplasm, with comparable results to breast MRI.

Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma

PURPOSE

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is a distinct histological subtype of breast cancer that can make early detection with mammography challenging. We compared imaging performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) for diagnoses of ILC, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and invasive mixed carcinoma (IMC) in a screening population.

METHODS

We included screening exams (DM; n = 1,715,249 or DBT; n = 414,793) from 2011 to 2018 among 839,801 women in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Examinations were followed for one year to ascertain incident ILC, IDC, or IMC. We measured cancer detection rate (CDR) and interval invasive cancer rate/1000 screening examinations for each histological subtype and stratified by breast density and modality. We calculated relative risk (RR) for DM vs. DBT using log-binomial models to adjust for the propensity of receiving DBT vs. DM.

RESULTS

Unadjusted CDR per 1000 mammograms of ILC overall was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.30-0.36) for DM; 0.45 (95%CI: 0.39-0.52) for DBT, and for women with dense breasts- 0.33 (95%CI: 0.29-0.37) for DM and 0.54 (95%CI: 0.43-0.66) for DBT. Similar results were noted for IDC and IMC. Adjusted models showed a significantly increased RR for cancer detection with DBT compared to DM among women with dense breasts for all three histologies (RR; 95%CI: ILC 1.53; 1.09-2.14, IDC 1.21; 1.02-1.44, IMC 1.76; 1.30-2.38), but no significant increase among women with non-dense breasts.

CONCLUSION

DBT was associated with higher CDR for ILC, IDC, and IMC for women with dense breasts. Early detection of ILC with DBT may improve outcomes for this distinct clinical entity.

Implementing the National Dense Breast Reporting Standard, Expanding Supplemental Screening Using Current Guidelines, and the Proposed Find It Early Act

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia (DC) have dense breast notification laws that mandate varying levels of patient notification about breast density after a mammogram, and these cover over 90% of American women. On March 10, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule amending regulations under the Mammography Quality Standards Act for a national dense breast reporting standard for both patient results letters and mammogram reports. Effective September 10, 2024, letters will be required to tell a woman her breasts are "dense" or "not dense," that dense tissue makes it harder to find cancers on a mammogram, and that it increases the risk of developing cancer. Women with dense breasts will also be told that other imaging tests in addition to a mammogram may help find cancers. The specific density category can be added (eg, if mandated by a state "inform" law). Reports to providers must include the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density category. Implementing appropriate supplemental screening should be based on patient risk for missed breast cancer on mammography; such assessment should include consideration of breast density and other risk factors. This article discusses strategies for implementation. Currently 21 states and DC have varying insurance laws for supplemental breast imaging; in addition, Oklahoma requires coverage for diagnostic breast imaging. A federal insurance bill, the Find It Early Act, has been introduced that would ensure no-cost screening and diagnostic imaging for women with dense breasts or at increased risk and close loopholes in state laws.

Short-term follow-up of contrast-enhanced mammography lesions after negative breast MRI in women with elevated breast cancer risk

PURPOSE

To determine the outcome of enhancing lesions detected on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) that had no correlate on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and underwent short-term follow-up CEM.

METHODS

In this retrospective single-center study, we identified patients with elevated breast cancer risk who had a CEM between 2014 and 2021 showing indeterminate enhancement on recombined images (BI-RADS 0, 3, 4) that had no correlate on subsequent MRI (performed within one month), and therefore underwent short-term follow-up CEM (performed within eight months). Medical records and imaging studies were reviewed to collect data on patient and lesion characteristics, and outcomes. Cancer incidence with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

RESULTS

This study included 71 women (median age 49 years) with 81 enhancing CEM lesions who underwent short-term follow-up CEM (median 6.2 months) after MRI reported no correlate. Of 81 lesions (median size = 0.7 cm), 73 (90%) were non-mass enhancement and 8 (10%) were enhancing masses. No sonographic correlate was identified for 75 lesions that had a same-day targeted ultrasound. Two cancers (2.5%, 95% CI 0.3-8.6) were diagnosed during the short-term follow-up period, one at 6-months (invasive ductal carcinoma) and one at 12-months (ductal carcinoma in situ). The remaining 79 lesions were benign at 6-month follow-up CEM and at one-year mammographic follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up CEM of MRI-occult lesions is prudent and may be reasonable to perform at one-year given the low incidence of cancer detected at six-months (one of 81) in our small study sample.

Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography with MRI Utilizing an Enriched Reader Study: A Breast Cancer Study (CONTRRAST Trial)

Background Despite growing interest in using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for breast cancer screening as an alternative to breast MRI, limited literature is available. Purpose To determine whether CEM is noninferior to breast MRI or abbreviated breast MRI (AB MRI) and superior to two-dimensional mammography in an asymptomatic population simulating those who would present for screening and then undergo diagnostic work-up. Materials and Methods This enriched reader study used CEM and MRI data prospectively collected from asymptomatic individuals at a single institution from December 2014 to March 2020. Case sets were obtained at screening, as part of work-up for a screening-detected finding, or before biopsy of a screening-detected abnormality. All images were anonymized and randomized, and all 12 radiologists interpreted them. For CEM interpretation, readers were first shown low-energy images as a surrogate for digital mammography and asked to give a forced Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score for up to three abnormalities. The highest score was used as the case score. Readers then reviewed the full CEM examination and scored it similarly. After a minimum 1-month washout, the readers similarly interpreted AB MRI and full MRI examinations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, powered to test CEM noninferiority to full MRI, was performed. Results The study included 132 case sets (14 negative, 74 benign, and 44 malignant; all female participants; mean age, 54 years ± 12 [SD]). The mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for digital mammography, CEM, AB MRI, and full MRI were 0.79, 0.91, 0.89, and 0.91, respectively. CEM was superior to digital mammography (P < .001). No evidence of a difference in AUC was found between CEM and AB MRI and MRI. Conclusion In an asymptomatic study sample, CEM was noninferior to full MRI and AB MRI and was superior to digital mammography. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03482557 and NCT02275871 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: I. Iodine signal testing

The technique of dual-energy contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) visualizes iodine uptake in cancerous breast lesions following an intravenous injection of a contrast medium. The CEM image is generated by recombining two images acquired in rapid succession: a low energy image, with a mean energy below the iodine K-edge, and a higher energy image. The first part of this study examines the use of both commercially available and custom made phantoms to investigate iodine imaging under different imaging conditions, with the focus on quality control (QC) testing. Four CEM equipped systems were included in the study, with units from Fujifilm, GE Healthcare, Hologic and Siemens-Healthineers. The CEM parameters assessed in part I were: (1) image signal as a function of iodine concentration, measured in breast tissue simulating backgrounds of varying thickness and adipose/glandular compositions; (2) normal breast texture cancellation in homogeneous and structured backgrounds; (3) visibility of iodinated structures. For all four systems, a linear response to iodine concentration was found but the degree to which this was independent of background composition differed between the systems. Good cancellation of the glandular tissue inserts was found on all the units. Visibility scores of iodinated targets were similar between the four systems. Specialized phantoms are needed to fully evaluate important CEM performance markers, such as system response to iodine concentration and the ability of the system to cancel background texture. An extensive evaluation of the iodine signal imaging performance is recommended at the Commissioning stage for a new CEM device.

New Approaches and Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Breast Cancer Screening

Population-based breast cancer screening using mammography as the gold standard imaging modality has been in clinical practice for over 40 years. However, the limitations of mammography in terms of sensitivity and high false-positive rates, particularly in high-risk women, challenge the indiscriminate nature of population-based screening. Additionally, in light of expanding research on new breast cancer risk factors, there is a growing consensus that breast cancer screening should move toward a risk-adapted approach. Recent advancements in breast imaging technology, including contrast material-enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (US) (automated-breast US, Doppler, elastography US), and especially magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (abbreviated, ultrafast, and contrast-agent free), may provide new opportunities for risk-adapted personalized screening strategies. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and radiomics techniques has the potential to enhance the performance of risk-adapted screening. This review article summarizes the current evidence and challenges in breast cancer screening and highlights potential future perspectives for various imaging techniques in a risk-adapted breast cancer screening approach. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Performance of Technologist-Performed Screening Breast Ultrasound After Tomosynthesis in Women With Dense Breasts (the DBTUST)

PURPOSE

To assess diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone or combined with technologist-performed handheld screening ultrasound (US) in women with dense breasts.

METHODS

In an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant multicenter protocol in western Pennsylvania, 6,179 women consented to three rounds of annual screening, interpreted by two radiologist observers, and had appropriate follow-up. Primary analysis was based on first observer results.

RESULTS

Mean participant age was 54.8 years (range, 40-75 years). Across 17,552 screens, there were 126 cancer events in 125 women (7.2/1,000; 95% CI, 5.9 to 8.4). In year 1, DBT-alone cancer yield was 5.0/1,000, and of DBT+US, 6.3/1,000, difference 1.3/1,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.1; P = .005). In years 2 + 3, DBT cancer yield was 4.9/1,000, and of DBT+US, 5.9/1,000, difference 1.0/1,000 (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.5; P < .001). False-positive rate increased from 7.0% for DBT in year 1 to 11.5% for DBT+US and from 5.9% for DBT in year 2 + 3 to 9.7% for DBT+US (P < .001 for both). Nine cancers were seen only by double reading DBT and one by double reading US. Ten interval cancers (0.6/1,000 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9]) were identified. Despite reduction in specificity, addition of US improved receiver operating characteristic curves, with area under receiver operating characteristic curve increasing from 0.83 for DBT alone to 0.92 for DBT+US in year 1 (P = .01), with smaller improvements in subsequent years. Of 6,179 women, across all 3 years, 172/6,179 (2.8%) unique women had a false-positive biopsy because of DBT as did another 230/6,179 (3.7%) women because of US (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Overall added cancer detection rate of US screening after DBT was modest at 19/17,552 (1.1/1,000; CI, 0.5- to 1.6) screens but potentially overcomes substantial increases in false-positive recalls and benign biopsies.

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.

Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST), representing up to 15% of all breast cancers.

DESIGN

Latest data on ILC are presented, focusing on diagnosis, molecular make-up according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines, treatment in the early and metastatic setting and ILC-focused clinical trials.

RESULTS

At the imaging level, magnetic resonance imaging-based and novel positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based techniques can overcome the limitations of currently used imaging techniques for diagnosing ILC. At the pathology level, E-cadherin immunohistochemistry could help improving inter-pathologist agreement. The majority of patients with ILC do not seem to benefit as much from (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy as patients with NST, although chemotherapy might be required in a subset of high-risk patients. No differences in treatment efficacy are seen for anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in the adjuvant setting and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. The clinical utility of the commercially available prognostic gene expression-based tests is unclear for patients with ILC. Several ESCAT alterations differ in frequency between ILC and NST. Germline BRCA1 and PALB2 alterations are less frequent in patients with ILC, while germline CDH1 (gene coding for E-cadherin) alterations are more frequent in patients with ILC. Somatic HER2 mutations are more frequent in ILC, especially in metastases (15% ILC versus 5% NST). A high tumour mutational burden, relevant for immune checkpoint inhibition, is more frequent in ILC metastases (16%) than in NST metastases (5%). Tumours with somatic inactivating CDH1 mutations may be vulnerable for treatment with ROS1 inhibitors, a concept currently investigated in early and metastatic ILC.

CONCLUSION

ILC is a unique malignancy based on its pathological and biological features leading to differences in diagnosis as well as in treatment response, resistance and targets as compared to NST.

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.

Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison

The radiation dose associated with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has been investigated only by single-center studies. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiation dose between two centers performing CEM within two prospective studies, using the same type of equipment. The CEM mean glandular dose (MGD) was computed for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) images and their sum was calculated for each view. MGD and related parameters (entrance dose, breast thickness, compression, and density) were compared between the two centers using the Mann−Whitney test. Finally, per-patient MGD was calculated by pooling the two datasets and determining the contribution of LE and HE images. A total of 348 CEM examinations were analyzed (228 from Center 1 and 120 from Center 2). The median total MGD per view was 2.33 mGy (interquartile range 2.19−2.51 mGy) at Center 1 and 2.46 mGy (interquartile range 2.32−2.70 mGy) at Center 2, with a 0.15 mGy median difference (p < 0.001) equal to 6.2%. LE-images contributed between 64% and 77% to the total patient dose in CEM, with the remaining 23−36% being associated with HE images. The mean radiation dose for a two-view bilateral CEM exam was 4.90 mGy, about 30% higher than for digital mammography.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising technique for breast cancer detection, but conflicting results have been reported in previous meta-analyses. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CEM diagnostic performance considering different interpretation methods and clinical settings. Materials and Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to July 15, 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating CEM diagnostic performance with histopathology and/or follow-up as the reference standard were included. Study quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Summary diagnostic odds ratio and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated with the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained with the hierarchical bivariate model, pooling studies with the same image interpretation approach or focused on the same findings. Heterogeneity was investigated through meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results Sixty studies (67 study parts, 11 049 CEM examinations in 10 605 patients) were included. The overall area under the HSROC curve was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91, 0.96). Pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 55.7 (95% CI: 42.7, 72.7) with high heterogeneity (τ² = 0.3). At meta-regression, CEM interpretation with both low-energy and recombined images had higher sensitivity (95% vs 94%, P < .001) and specificity (81% vs 71%, P = .03) compared with recombined images alone. At subgroup analysis, CEM showed a 95% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 92, 97) and a 78% pooled specificity (95% CI: 66, 87) from nine studies in patients with dense breasts, while in 10 studies on mammography-detected suspicious findings, CEM had a 92% pooled sensitivity (95% CI: 89, 94) and an 84% pooled specificity (95% CI: 73, 91). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography demonstrated high performance in breast cancer detection, especially with joint interpretation of low-energy and recombined images. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bahl in this issue.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: 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.