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

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.

Contrast-Enhanced Stereotactic Biopsy (CESB): Patient selection and practical considerations

Since its introduction in 2012, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown increased clinical relevance as a diagnostic tool in breast imaging. Its diagnostic accuracy is on par with breast MRI, rendering it a viable and potentially cost-effective alternative for breast MRI indications, especially in areas with lower accessibility to MRI. Like MRI, CEM occasionally shows 'CEM-only' lesions, i.e., areas of contrast enhancement without corresponding findings on low-energy images, ultrasound, or digital tomosynthesis. The current workaround usually consists of performing MRI-guided biopsy. However, contrast-enhanced stereotactic biopsy (CESB) offers a new alternative and has become commercially available since 2020. This narrative review will outline patient selection, the procedure, important considerations when performing CESB, and an overview of current literature.

Dedicated Breast CT: Getting Ready for Prime Time

Dedicated breast CT is an imaging modality that provides true 3D imaging of the breast with many advantages over current conventional breast imaging modalities. The addition of intravascular contrast increases the sensitivity of breast CT substantially. As such, there are immediate potential applications in the clinical workflow. These include using breast CT to replace much of the traditional diagnostic workup when faced with indeterminate breast lesions. Contrast-enhanced breast CT may be appropriate as a supplemental screening tool for women at high risk of breast cancer, similar to breast MRI. In addition, emerging studies are demonstrating the utility of breast CT in neoadjuvant chemotherapy tumor response monitoring as well as planning for surgical treatment options. While short exam times and fully 3D imaging in a noncompressed position are advantages of this modality, limited coverage of chest wall/axilla due to prone positioning and use of ionizing radiation are drawbacks. To date, several studies have reported on the performance characteristics of this promising modality.

Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study aimed to compare the average glandular dose (AGD) per acquisition in breast biopsies guided by contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), conventional stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The study also investigated the influence of compressed breast thickness (CBT) and density on AGD. Furthermore, the study aimed to estimate the AGD per procedure for each guidance modality.

METHODS

The study included 163 female patients (mean age 57 ± 10 years) who underwent mammography-guided biopsies using SBB (9%), DBT (65%), or CEM (26%) guidance. AGD and CBT data were extracted from DICOM headers, and breast density was visually assessed. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-tests and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Mean AGD per acquisition varied slightly among CEM (1.48 ± 0.22 mGy), SBB (1.49 ± 0.40 mGy), and DBT (1.55 ± 0.47 mGy), with CEM presenting higher AGD at lower CBTs and less dose escalation at higher CBTs. For CBT > 55 mm, CEM showed reduced AGD compared to SBB and DBT (p < 0.001). Breast density had minimal impact on AGD, except for category A. The estimated AGD per procedure was approximately 11.84 mGy for CEM, 11.92 mGy for SBB, and 6.2 mGy for DBT.

CONCLUSION

The study found mean AGD per acquisition to be similar for CEM and SBB, with DBT slightly higher. CEM demonstrated higher AGD at lower CBT but lower AGD at higher CBT, indicating reduced dose escalation with increasing thickness. While breast density had minimal overall impact, variations were noted in category A. DBT was more dose-efficient per procedure due to fewer acquisitions required.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

CEM guidance provides effective lesion visualization within safe radiation limits, improving the precision of percutaneous image-guided breast interventions and supporting its potential consideration in a wider range of breast diagnostic procedures.

KEY POINTS

Limited data exist on the AGD using CEM guidance for breast biopsies. CEM and SBB exhibit similar AGD per acquisition; DBT demonstrated the lowest AGD per procedure. Radiation from CEM guidance fits within safe limits for percutaneous image-guided breast interventions.

Current use and future perspectives of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM): a survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)

OBJECTIVES

To perform a survey among members of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) regarding the use of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

A panel of nine board-certified radiologists developed a 29-item online questionnaire, distributed to all EUSOBI members (inside and outside Europe) from January 25 to March 10, 2023. CEM implementation, examination protocols, reporting strategies, and current and future CEM indications were investigated. Replies were exploratively analyzed with descriptive and non-parametric statistics.

RESULTS

Among 434 respondents (74.9% from Europe), 50% (217/434) declared to use CEM, 155/217 (71.4%) seeing less than 200 CEMs per year. CEM use was associated with academic settings and high breast imaging workload (p < 0.001). The lack of CEM adoption was most commonly due to the perceived absence of a clinical need (65.0%) and the lack of resources to acquire CEM-capable systems (37.3%). CEM protocols varied widely, but most respondents (61.3%) had already adopted the 2022 ACR CEM BI-RADS® lexicon. CEM use in patients with contraindications to MRI was the most common current indication (80.6%), followed by preoperative staging (68.7%). Patients with MRI contraindications also represented the most commonly foreseen CEM indication (88.0%), followed by the work-up of inconclusive findings at non-contrast examinations (61.5%) and supplemental imaging in dense breasts (53.0%). Respondents declaring CEM use and higher CEM experience gave significantly more current (p = 0.004) and future indications (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a trend towards academic high-workload settings and its prevalent use in patients with MRI contraindications, CEM use and progressive experience were associated with increased confidence in the technique.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In this first survey on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) use and perspectives among the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) members, the perceived absence of a clinical need chiefly drove the 50% CEM adoption rate. CEM adoption and progressive experience were associated with more extended current and future indications.

KEY POINTS

• Among the 434 members of the European Society of Breast Imaging who completed this survey, 50% declared to use contrast-enhanced mammography in clinical practice. • Due to the perceived absence of a clinical need, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is still prevalently used as a replacement for MRI in patients with MRI contraindications. • The number of current and future CEM indications marked by respondents was associated with their degree of CEM experience.

The verification of the utility of a commercially available phantom combination for quality control in contrast-enhanced mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography is being increasingly implemented clinically, providing much improved contrast between tumour and background structures, particularly in dense breasts. Although CEM is similar to conventional mammography it differs via an additional exposure with high energy X-rays (≥ 40 kVp) and subsequent image subtraction. Because of its special operational aspects, the CEM aspect of a CEM unit needs to be uniquely characterised and evaluated. This study aims to verify the utility of a commercially available phantom set (BR3D model 020 and CESM model 022 phantoms (CIRS, Norfolk, Virginia, USA)) in performing key CEM performance tests (linearity of system response with iodine concentration and background subtraction) on two models of CEM units in a clinical setting. The tests were successfully performed, yielding results similar to previously published studies. Further, similarities and differences in the two systems from different vendors were highlighted, knowledge of which may potentially facilitate optimisation of the systems.

Phantom-based analysis of variations in automatic exposure control across three mammography systems: implications for radiation dose and image quality in mammography, DBT, and CEM

BACKGROUND

Automatic exposure control (AEC) plays a crucial role in mammography by determining the exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality based on the absorption characteristics of compressed breasts. This study aimed to characterize the behavior of AEC for digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) acquisitions used in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for three mammography systems from two manufacturers.

METHODS

Using phantoms simulating various breast thicknesses, 363 studies were acquired using all available AEC modes 165 DM, 132 DBT, and 66 LE-CEM and HE-CEM. AEC behaviors were compared across systems and modalities to assess the impact of different technical components and manufacturers' strategies on the resulting mean glandular doses (MGDs) and image quality metrics such as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).

RESULTS

For all systems and modalities, AEC increased MGD for increasing phantom thicknesses and decreased CNR. The median MGD values (interquartile ranges) were 1.135 mGy (0.772-1.668) for DM, 1.257 mGy (0.971-1.863) for DBT, 1.280 mGy (0.937-1.878) for LE-CEM, and 0.630 mGy (0.397-0.713) for HE-CEM. Medians CNRs were 14.2 (7.8-20.2) for DM, 4.91 (2.58-7.20) for a single projection in DBT, 11.9 (8.0-18.2) for LE-CEM, and 5.2 (3.6-9.2) for HE-CEM. AECs showed high repeatability, with variations lower than 5% for all modes in DM, DBT, and CEM.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior between systems, modalities, and AEC modes, influenced by technical components and manufacturers' strategies, with potential implications in radiation dose and image quality in clinical settings.

RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The study emphasized the central role of automatic exposure control in DM, DBT, and CEM acquisitions and the great variability in dose and image quality among manufacturers and between modalities. Caution is needed when generalizing conclusions about differences across mammography modalities.

KEY POINTS

• AEC plays a crucial role in DM, DBT, and CEM. • AEC determines the "optimal" exposure conditions needed to achieve specific image quality. • The study revealed substantial differences in AEC behavior, influenced by differences in technical components and strategies.

Physical and dosimetric characterisation of different Contrast-Enhanced digital mammographic systems: A multicentric study

PURPOSE

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a relatively new imaging technique recombining low- and high-energy mammograms to emphasise iodine contrast. This work aims to perform a multicentric physical and dosimetric characterisation of four state-of-the-art CEDM systems.

METHODS

We evaluated tube output, half-value-layer (HVL) for low- and high-energy and average glandular dose (AGD) in a wide range of equivalent breast thicknesses. CIRS phantom 022 was used to estimate the overall performance of a CEDM examination in the subtracted image in terms of the iodine difference signal (S). To calculate dosimetric impact of CEDM examination, we collected 4542 acquisitions on patients.

RESULTS

Even if CEDM acquisition strategies differ, all the systems presented a linear behaviour between S and iodine concentration. The curve fit slopes expressed in PV/mg/cm2 were in the range [92-97] for Fujifilm, [31-32] for GE Healthcare, [35-36] for Hologic, and [114-130] for IMS. Dosimetric data from patients were matched with AGD values calculated using equivalent PMMA thicknesses. Fujifilm exhibited the lowest values, while GE Healthcare showed the highest.

CONCLUSION

The subtracted image showed the ability of all the systems to give important information about the linearity of the signal with the iodine concentrations. All the patient-collected doses were under the AGD EUREF 2D Acceptable limit, except for patients with thicknesses ≤35 mm belonging to GE Healthcare and Hologic, which were slightly over. This work demonstrates the importance of testing each CEDM system to know how it performs regarding dose and the relationship between PV and iodine concentration.

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.

Breast Cancer Detection Using a Low-Dose Positron Emission Digital Mammography System

Purpose To investigate the feasibility of low-dose positron emission mammography (PEM) concurrently to MRI to identify breast cancer and determine its local extent. Materials and Methods In this research ethics board-approved prospective study, participants newly diagnosed with breast cancer with concurrent breast MRI acquisitions were assigned independently of breast density, tumor size, and histopathologic cancer subtype to undergo low-dose PEM with up to 185 MBq of fluorine 18-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG). Two breast radiologists, unaware of the cancer location, reviewed PEM images taken 1 and 4 hours following 18F-FDG injection. Findings were correlated with histopathologic results. Detection accuracy and participant details were examined using logistic regression and summary statistics, and a comparative analysis assessed the efficacy of PEM and MRI additional lesions detection (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03520218). Results Twenty-five female participants (median age, 52 years; range, 32-85 years) comprised the cohort. Twenty-four of 25 (96%) cancers (19 invasive cancers and five in situ diseases) were identified with PEM from 100 sets of bilateral images, showcasing comparable performance even after 3 hours of radiotracer uptake. The median invasive cancer size was 31 mm (range, 10-120). Three additional in situ grade 2 lesions were missed at PEM. While not significant, PEM detected fewer false-positive additional lesions compared with MRI (one of six [16%] vs eight of 13 [62%]; P = .14). Conclusion This study suggests the feasibility of a low-dose PEM system in helping to detect invasive breast cancer. Though large-scale clinical trials are essential to confirm these preliminary results, this study underscores the potential of this low-dose PEM system as a promising imaging tool in breast cancer diagnosis. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT03520218 Keywords: Positron Emission Digital Mammography, Invasive Breast Cancer, Oncology, MRI Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024 See also commentary by Barreto and Rapelyea in this issue.

Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations for dosimetry in x-ray breast imaging: Part I - Macroscopic scales

BACKGROUND

X-ray breast imaging modalities are commonly employed for breast cancer detection, from screening programs to diagnosis. Thus, dosimetry studies are important for quality control and risk estimation since ionizing radiation is used.

PURPOSE

To perform multiscale dosimetry assessments for different breast imaging modalities and for a variety of breast sizes and compositions. The first part of our study is focused on macroscopic scales (down to millimeters).

METHODS

Nine anthropomorphic breast phantoms with a voxel resolution of 0.5 mm were computationally generated using the BreastPhantom software, representing three breast sizes with three distinct values of volume glandular fraction (VGF) for each size. Four breast imaging modalities were studied: digital mammography (DM), contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and dedicated breast computed tomography (BCT). Additionally, the impact of tissue elemental compositions from two databases were compared. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed with the MC-GPU code to obtain the 3D glandular dose distribution (GDD) for each case considered with the mean glandular dose (MGD) fixed at 4 mGy (to facilitate comparisons).

RESULTS

The GDD within the breast is more uniform for CEDM and BCT compared to DM and DBT. For large breasts and high VGF, the ratio between the minimum/maximum glandular dose to MGD is 0.12/4.02 for DM and 0.46/1.77 for BCT; the corresponding results for a small breast and low VGF are 0.35/1.98 (DM) and 0.63/1.42 (BCT). The elemental compositions of skin, adipose and glandular tissue have a considerable impact on the MGD, with variations up to 30% compared to the baseline. The inclusion of tissues other than glandular and adipose within the breast has a minor impact on MGD, with differences below 2%. Variations in the final compressed breast thickness alter the shape of the GDD, with a higher compression resulting in a more uniform GDD.

CONCLUSIONS

For a constant MGD, the GDD varies with imaging modality and breast compression. Elemental tissue compositions are an important factor for obtaining MGD values, being a source of systematic uncertainties in MC simulations and, consequently, in breast dosimetry.

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.

Inter-reader agreement of breast magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer diagnosis: a multi-reader retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are nowadays used in breast imaging but studies about their inter-reader agreement are lacking. Therefore, we compared the inter-reader agreement of CEM and MRI in breast cancer diagnosis in the same patients.

METHODS

Breast MRI and CEM exams performed in a single center (09/2020-09/2021) for an IRB-approved study were retrospectively and independently evaluated by four radiologists of two different centers with different levels of experience who were blinded to the clinical and other imaging data. The reference standard was the histological diagnosis or at least 1-year negative imaging follow-up. Inter-reader agreement was examined using Cohen's and Fleiss' kappa (κ) statistics and compared with the Wald test.

RESULTS

Of the 750 patients, 395 met inclusion criteria (44.5 ± 14 years old), with 752 breasts available for CEM and MRI. Overall agreement was moderate (κ = 0.60) for MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM. For expert readers, the agreement was substantial (κ = 0.77) for MRI and almost perfect (κ = 0.82) for CEM; for non-expert readers was fair (κ = 0.39); and for MRI and moderate (κ = 0.57) for CEM. Pairwise agreement between expert readers and non-expert readers was moderate (κ = 0.50) for breast MRI and substantial (κ = 0.74) for CEM and it showed a statistically superior agreement of the expert over the non-expert readers only for MRI (p = 0.011) and not for CEM (p = 0.062).

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement of CEM was superior to that of MRI (p = 0.012), including for both expert (p = 0.031) and non-expert readers (p = 0.005).

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Updated Recommendations From the ACR

Early detection decreases breast cancer death. The ACR recommends annual screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk and earlier and/or more intensive screening for women at higher-than-average risk. For most women at higher-than-average risk, the supplemental screening method of choice is breast MRI. Women with genetics-based increased risk, those with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more, and those exposed to chest radiation at young ages are recommended to undergo MRI surveillance starting at ages 25 to 30 and annual mammography (with a variable starting age between 25 and 40, depending on the type of risk). Mutation carriers can delay mammographic screening until age 40 if annual screening breast MRI is performed as recommended. Women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 50 or with personal histories of breast cancer and dense breasts should undergo annual supplemental breast MRI. Others with personal histories, and those with atypia at biopsy, should strongly consider MRI screening, especially if other risk factors are present. For women with dense breasts who desire supplemental screening, breast MRI is recommended. For those who qualify for but cannot undergo breast MRI, contrast-enhanced mammography or ultrasound could be considered. All women should undergo risk assessment by age 25, especially Black women and women of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, so that those at higher-than-average risk can be identified and appropriate screening initiated.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technique and initial outcomes

Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy (CEM-Bx), a novel technique for diagnosing suspicious enhanced lesions, was commercialized for clinical application in 2021; however, there are only a few publications documenting this technique in the existing literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the procedural performance and preliminary outcomes of CEM-Bx performed in our hospital between from September 2021 to June 2022. We reviewed data of 12 women who underwent CEM-Bx during the study period, including their demographic and procedural characteristics, biopsy success rate, histopathological diagnosis, and average glandular dose (AGD). All women (mean age ± standard deviation: 54±6 years) showed enhanced breast lesions on CEM and underwent CEM-Bx within one week. The success rate of CEM-Bx was 100%. The vertical needle approach was used in a decubitus position (N=7, 58%), while the horizontal needle approach was used in an upright sitting position (N=5, 42%). The mean procedure time for the CEM-Bx was 17±6.3 min. The mean AGD was 14.3±12.3 mGy. Histopathologic examination revealed a malignancy rate of 66.7%. In summary, CEM-Bx is a feasible technique, with a high success rate of diagnosing contract-enhanced lesions.

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Conventional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography (DM) combined with breast ultrasound (BUS) in women with dense breasts. Between March 2021 and February 2022, patients eligible for CEM with the breast composition category ACR BI-RADS c-d at DM and an abnormal finding (BI-RADS 3-4-5) at DM and/or BUS were considered. During CEM, a nonionic iodinated contrast agent (Iohexol 350 mg I/mL, 1.5 mL/kg) was power-injected intravenously. Images were evaluated independently by two breast radiologists. Findings classified as BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign, while BI-RADS 4-5 were considered malignant. In case of discrepancies, the higher category was considered for DM+BUS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated, using histology/≥12-month follow-up as gold standards. In total, 51 patients with 65 breast lesions were included. 59 (90.7%) abnormal findings were detected at DM+BUS, and 65 (100%) at CEM. The inter-reader agreement was excellent (Cohen's k = 0.87 for DM+BUS and 0.97 for CEM). CEM showed a 93.5% sensitivity (vs. 90.3% for DM+BUS), a 79.4-82.4% specificity (vs. 32.4-35.5% for DM+BUS) (McNemar p = 0.006), a 80.6-82.9% PPV (vs. 54.9-56.0% for DM+BUS), a 93.1-93.3% NPV (vs. 78.6-80.0% for DM+BUS), and a 86.1-87.7% accuracy (vs. 60.0-61.5% for DM+BUS). The AUC was higher for CEM than for DM+BUS (0.865 vs. 0.613 for Reader 1, and 0.880 vs. 0.628, for Reader 2) (p < 0.001). In conclusion, CEM had a better diagnostic performance than DM and BUS alone and combined together in patients with dense breasts.

Barriers to Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Accumulating evidence shows that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has higher diagnostic performance than digital mammography and ultrasound and comparable diagnostic performance to MRI for various indications. CEM also offers certain practical advantages for patients. Nevertheless, the clinical implementation of CEM has been limited because of a range of factors. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review explores such factors hindering CEM implementation. These factors include the following: the risks of iodinated contrast media, increased radiation exposure, indications for which CEM is not the preferred test or for which further evidence is needed, workflow adjustments needed when performing CEM examinations, incomplete availability of CEM-guided biopsy systems, and reimbursement challenges. Considerations that currently mitigate or are expected to mitigate these factors are also highlighted.

Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting

This study aims to evaluate the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of CEM versus Digital Mammography (DM) as well as versus DM plus one-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), which were performed in the same patients at short intervals of time. A preventive screening examination in high-risk asymptomatic patients between 2020 and 2022 was performed with two-view Digital Mammography (DM) projections (Cranio Caudal and Medio Lateral) plus one Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) projection (mediolateral oblique, MLO) in a single session examination. For all patients in whom we found a suspicious lesion by using DM + DBT, we performed (within two weeks) a CEM examination. AGD and compression force were compared between the diagnostic methods. All lesions identified by DM + DBT were biopsied; then, we assessed whether lesions found by DBT were also highlighted by DM alone and/or by CEM. We enrolled 49 patients with 49 lesions in the study. The median AGD was lower for DM alone than for CEM (3.41 mGy vs. 4.24 mGy, p = 0.015). The AGD for CEM was significantly lower than for the DM plus one single projection DBT protocol (4.24 mGy vs. 5.55 mGy, p < 0.001). We did not find a statistically significant difference in the median compression force between the CEM and DM + DBT. DM + DBT allows the identification of one more invasive neoplasm one in situ lesion and two high-risk lesions, compared to DM alone. The CEM, compared to DM + DBT, failed to identify only one of the high-risk lesions. According to these results, CEM could be used in the screening of asymptomatic high-risk patients.

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.

Breast dosimetry in alternative X-ray-based imaging modalities used in current clinical practices

In X-ray breast imaging, Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), are the standard and largely used techniques, both for diagnostic and screening purposes. Other techniques, such as dedicated Breast Computed Tomography (BCT) and Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) have been developed as an alternative or a complementary technique to the established ones. The performance of these imaging techniques is being continuously assessed to improve the image quality and to reduce the radiation dose. These imaging modalities are predominantly used in the diagnostic setting to resolve incomplete or indeterminate findings detected with conventional screening examinations and could potentially be used either as an adjunct or as a primary screening tool in select populations, such as for women with dense breasts. The aim of this review is to describe the radiation dosimetry for these imaging techniques, and to compare the mean glandular dose with standard breast imaging modalities, such as DM and DBT.