Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Screening Women after Breast Conserving Surgery

Contrast-enhanced mammography for surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer

PURPOSE

Women with a personal history of breast cancer have an increased risk of subsequent breast malignancy and may benefit from more sensitive surveillance than conventional mammography (MG). We previously reported outcomes for first surveillance episode using contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), demonstrating higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to MG. We now report CEM performance for subsequent surveillance.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 1,190 women in an Australian hospital setting undergoing annual surveillance following initial surveillance CEM between June 2016 and December 2022. Outcome measures were recall rate, cancer detection rate, contribution of contrast to recalls, false positive rate, interval cancer rate and characteristics of surveillance detected and interval cancers.

RESULTS

2,592 incident surveillance episodes were analysed, of which 93% involved contrast-based imaging. Of 116 (4.5%) recall episodes, 40/116 (34%) recalls were malignant (27 invasive; 13 ductal carcinoma in situ), totalling 15.4 cancers per 1000 surveillance episodes. 55/116 (47%) recalls were contrast-directed including 17/40 (43%) true positive recalls. Tumour features were similar for contrast-directed recalls and other diagnoses. 8/9 (89%) of contrast-directed invasive recalls were Grade 2-3, and 5/9 (56%) were triple negative breast cancers. There were two symptomatic interval cancers (0.8 per 1000 surveillance episodes, program sensitivity 96%).

CONCLUSION

Routine use of CEM in surveillance of women with PHBC led to an increase in the detection of clinically significant malignant lesions, with a low interval cancer rate compared to previous published series. Compared to mammographic surveillance, contrast-enhanced mammography increases the sensitivity of surveillance programs for women with PHBC.

Contrast-enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging

Imaging research pathways focus increasingly on the development of individualised approaches to breast cancer detection, diagnosis and management. Detection of breast cancer with X-ray mammography may fail in some cancer subtypes with limited changes in morphology/tissue density and in women with dense breasts. International organisations offer recommendations for contrast-enhanced breast imaging, as it provides superior sensitivity for screening, local staging and assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response, when compared with standard X-ray mammography (including tomosynthesis) and breast ultrasound. Arguably, the evidence base is stronger for contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). Unfortunately, patient access to breast MRI in rural and remote areas is limited by practical limitations and equipment licensing restrictions. Moreover, breast MRI is an expensive test, likely to be out of reach for many women. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) offers an attractive alternative to improve patient access to functional breast imaging. It is a new type of digital, dual energy X-ray mammography that can be performed on most modern units, following a relatively inexpensive hard- and software upgrade. In this paper, we review the rapidly accumulating evidence that CEM can provide similar diagnostic accuracy to CE-MRI, though at a significantly lower cost and offering greater comfort to the patient. The adoption of CEM can help meet the anticipated increased demand for CE-MRI.

Evaluating ten years of breast cancer screening with contrast enhanced mammography in women with Intermediate-high risk

PURPOSE

While mammography is considered the gold standard for screening women for breast cancer, its accuracy declines in women with dense breasts. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for detecting breast cancer in intermediate and high-risk women, including those with genetic predispositions, over a decade-long cohort at a tertiary center.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all CEM examinations performed for screening purposes at a tertiary center between 2012 and 2023. Data were extracted from imaging reports and from medical records. All biopsies performed up to one year following CEM examinations, and all breast cancer cases were extracted. BI-RADS scores from CEM reports were compared to biopsy results and to imaging follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, area under the ROC curve (AUC), and cumulative cancer detection rate were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall 5,424 screening CEM examinations were analyzed. The mean age was 54.8 ± 8.9 years. Family history of breast cancer was recorded in 1,134/5,424 (20.9 %) women. Most women (4,606/5,424, 84.9 %) had dense breasts (BI-RADS C-D). Overall, 628 biopsies were performed within one year of screening, and 74 cancers were detected. CEM had sensitivity 95.9 % (71/74), specificity 81.8 % (4378/5350), positive predictive value 6.8 % (71/1043), negative predictive value 99.9 % (4378/4381). The cancer detection rate for CEM was 13.1 per 1,000 cases, and the AUC was 0.923.

CONCLUSIONS

CEM is a viable breast cancer screening method for women with dense breasts. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term prognostic impact of CEM screening.

MR-contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for follow-up of breast cancer patients: a "pros and cons" debate

Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at an increased risk of either a local recurrence or a new primary breast cancer. Thus, surveillance is essential for the detection of recurrent disease at the earliest possible stage, allowing for prompt treatment, and potentially improving overall survival. Nowadays, mammography follow-up is the only surveillance imaging technique recommended by international guidelines. Nevertheless, sensitivity of mammography is lower after breast cancer treatment, particularly during the first 5 years, due to increased density or post-treatment changes. Contrast-enhanced breast imaging techniques, such as MRI or contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), are very sensitive to detect malignant enhancement, especially in dense breasts. This Special Report will provide arguments in favor of and against breast cancer follow-up with MRI or CEM, in a debate style between experts in Breast Imaging. Finally, the scientific points of pros and cons arguments will be summarized to help objectively decide the best follow-up strategy for women with a personal history of breast cancer. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A personalized approach to follow-up imaging after conservative breast cancer treatment could optimize patient outcomes, using mammography as a baseline for most patients, and MRI or CEM selectively in patients with higher risks for a recurrence. KEY POINTS: • Women with a personal history of breast cancer are at an increased risk of either a local recurrence or a new primary breast cancer. • Breast cancer survivors may benefit from additional imaging with MRI/CEM, in case of increased risk of a second breast cancer, with dense breasts or a cancer diagnosis before age 50 years. • As survival after local recurrence seems to depend on the initial stage at diagnosis, imaging should be more focused on detecting tumors in the earliest stages.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Women with Extremely Dense Breasts at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer

Background Mammogram interpretation is challenging in female patients with extremely dense breasts (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category D), who have a higher breast cancer risk. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has recently emerged as a potential alternative; however, data regarding CEM utility in this subpopulation are limited. Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM for breast cancer screening in female patients with extremely dense breasts. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-institution study included consecutive CEM examinations in asymptomatic female patients with extremely dense breasts performed from December 2012 to March 2022. From CEM examinations, low-energy (LE) images were the equivalent of a two-dimensional full-field digital mammogram. Recombined images highlighting areas of contrast enhancement were constructed using a postprocessing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of LE images and CEM images (ie, including both LE and recombined images) were calculated and compared using the McNemar test. Results This study included 1299 screening CEM examinations (609 female patients; mean age, 50 years ± 9 [SD]). Sixteen screen-detected cancers were diagnosed, and two interval cancers occured. Five cancers were depicted at LE imaging and an additional 11 cancers were depicted at CEM (incremental cancer detection rate, 8.7 cancers per 1000 examinations). CEM sensitivity was 88.9% (16 of 18; 95% CI: 65.3, 98.6), which was higher than the LE examination sensitivity of 27.8% (five of 18; 95% CI: 9.7, 53.5) (P = .003). However, there was decreased CEM specificity (88.9%; 1108 of 1246; 95% CI: 87.0, 90.6) compared with LE imaging (specificity, 96.2%; 1199 of 1246; 95% CI: 95.0, 97.2) (P < .001). Compared with specificity at baseline, CEM specificity at follow-up improved to 90.7% (705 of 777; 95% CI: 88.5, 92.7; P = .01). Conclusion Compared with LE imaging, CEM showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity in female patients with extremely dense breasts, although specificity improved at follow-up. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Lobbes in this issue.

Addition of Contrast-enhanced Mammography to Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Prospective TOCEM Trial Interim Analysis

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is often inadequate for screening women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). The ongoing prospective Tomosynthesis or Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, or TOCEM, trial includes three annual screenings with both DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Purpose To perform interim assessment of cancer yield, stage, and recall rate when CEM is added to DBT in women with PHBC. Materials and Methods From October 2019 to December 2022, two radiologists interpreted both examinations: Observer 1 reviewed DBT first and then CEM, and observer 2 reviewed CEM first and then DBT. Effects of adding CEM to DBT on incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR), cancer type and node status, recall rate, and other performance characteristics of the primary radiologist decisions were assessed. Results Among the participants (mean age at entry, 63.6 years ± 9.6 [SD]), 1273, 819, and 227 women with PHBC completed year 1, 2, and 3 screening, respectively. For observer 1, year 1 cancer yield was 20 of 1273 (15.7 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and 29 of 1273 (22.8 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 7.1 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 3.2, 13.4]) for DBT plus CEM (P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 cancer yield was four of 1046 (3.8 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and eight of 1046 (7.6 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 3.8 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 1.0, 7.6]) for DBT plus CEM (P = .001). Year 1 recall rate for observer 1 was 103 of 1273 (8.1%) for (incidence) DBT alone and 187 of 1273 (14.7%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 84 of 1273, 6.6% [95% CI: 5.3, 8.1]; P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 recall rate was 40 of 1046 (3.8%) for DBT and 92 of 1046 (8.8%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 52 of 1046, 5.0% [95% CI: 3.7, 6.3]; P < .001). In 18 breasts with cancer detected only at CEM after integration of both observers, 13 (72%) cancers were invasive (median tumor size, 0.6 cm) and eight of nine (88%) with staging were N0. Among 1883 screenings with adequate reference standard, there were three interval cancers (one at the scar, two in axillae). Conclusion CEM added to DBT increased early breast cancer detection each year in women with PHBC, with an accompanying approximately 5.0%-6.6% recall rate increase. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04085510 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

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.

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.

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.

Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis of Patient Preferences for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI as Supplemental Screening Options for Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To guide implementation of supplemental breast screening by assessing patient preferences for contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology.

METHODS

In an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant protocol, from March 23 to June 3, 2022, we contacted 579 women who had both CEM screening and MRI. Women were e-mailed an invitation to complete an online survey developed using an AHP-based model to elicit preferences for CEM or MRI. Methods for categorical data analysis were used to evaluate factors affecting preferences, under the Bonferroni correction for multiplicity.

RESULTS

Complete responses were received from 222 (38.3%) women; the 189 women with a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age 61.8 years, and the 34 women without a personal history of breast cancer had a mean age of 53.6 years. Of 222 respondents, 157 (70.7%, confidence interval [CI]: 64.7-76.7) were determined to prefer CEM to MRI. Breast positioning was the most important criterion for 74 of 222 (33.3%) respondents, with claustrophobia, intravenous line placement, and overall stress most important for 38, 37, and 39 women (17.1%, 16.7%, and 17.6%), respectively, and noise level, contrast injection, and indifference being emphasized least frequently (by 10 [4.5%], 11 [5.0%], and 13 [5.9%] women, respectively). CEM preference was most prevalent (MRI least prevalent) for respondents emphasizing claustrophobia (37 of 38 [97%], CI: 86.2-99.9); CEM preference was least prevalent (MRI most prevalent) for respondents emphasizing breast positioning (40 of 74 [54%], CI: 42.1-65.7).

CONCLUSIONS

AHP-based modeling reveals strong patient preferences for CEM over MRI, with claustrophobia favoring preference for CEM and breast positioning relatively favoring preference for MRI. Our results should help guide implementation of screening CEM and MRI.

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.

Outcomes of breast conserving therapy: Recurrence, imaging findings and histological correlation

Background

Breast conserving therapy (BCT) is the mainstay therapy in patients with early breast cancer and selected patients with locally advanced breast cancer. No formal audit has been performed on BCT at our institution.

Objectives

To determine the incidence and risk factors for ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR). Study the imaging features of IBTR. Determine adherence to the proposed annual mammographic surveillance schedule.

Method

Clinical, radiological and histopathological records of patients who underwent BCT from 01 January 2011 to 31 December 2015 were reviewed. Patients were followed up for at least 5 years.

Results

Ninety-two patients were included in the study with a mean age of 54.3 years. Eighty of the 92 (87.0%) patients were imaged within 1-year post-BCT. Ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence was 6/92 (6.5%) with mean time to IBTR of 34.4 months. One of the 92 (1.0%) patients had a contralateral metachronous recurrence with no IBTR and 11/92 (12.0%) had distant metastases only. Pathological tumour size and extent (pT2) (68.5%) and pathological lymph node (pN0) (65.2%) were the most common locoregional staging. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma was the most common histological type (88%). Age < 35 years was associated with breast cancer recurrence (p < 0.01). Imaging findings of recurrence were microcalcification (odds ratio [OR]: 4), asymmetric density (OR: 4) and skin thickening (OR: 2.5).

Conclusion

The occurrence of IBTR following BCT in our unit is acceptable and comparable to local and international units. The accuracy of assessing the post-BCT breast for IBTR is in keeping with international standards.

Contribution

Improved radiological imaging interpretation of the post-BCT breast.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveillance

PURPOSE

Mammography (MG) is the standard imaging in surveillance of women with a personal history of breast cancer or DCIS (PHBC), supplemented with ultrasound. Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) has higher sensitivity than MG and US. We report the performance of CEM compared with MG ± US.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients undergoing their first surveillance CEM in an Australian hospital setting between June 2006 and October 2020. Cases where a patient was recalled for assessment were identified, recording radiology, pathology and treatment details. Blinded re-reading of recalled cases was performed to determine the contribution of contrast. Use of surveillance US across the board was assessed for the period.

RESULTS

73/1191 (6.1%) patients were recalled. 35 (48%) were true positives (TP), with 26 invasive cancers and 9 cases of DCIS, while 38 (52%) were false positive (FP) with a positive predictive value (PPV) 47.9%. 32/73 were recalled due to MG findings, while 41/73 were only recalled due to Contrast. 14/73 had 'minimal signs' with a lesion identifiable on MG with knowledge of the contrast finding, while 27/73 were visible only with contrast. 41% (17/41) recalled due to contrast were TP. Contrast-only TPs were found with low and high mammographic density (MD). Screening breast US reduced by 55% in the year after CEM was implemented.

CONCLUSION

Compared to MG, CEM as a single surveillance modality for those with PHBC has higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, identifying additional malignant lesions that are clinically significant. Investigation of interval cancer and subsequent round outcomes is warranted.

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.