Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Women with Palpable Breast Abnormalities

Overview

Journal Acad Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2023 Nov 10

PMID 37949703

Authors

Tali Amir

Katja Pinker

Varadan Sevilimedu

Mary Hughes

Delia T Keating

Janice S Sung

Maxine S Jochelson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Rationale And Objectives: To examine the role of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the work-up of palpable breast abnormalities.

Materials And Methods: In this single-center combination prospective-retrospective study, women with palpable breast abnormalities underwent CEM evaluation prospectively, comprising the acquisition of low energy (LE) images and recombined images (RI) which depict enhancement, followed by targeted ultrasound (US). Two independent readers retrospectively reviewed the imaging and assigned BI-RADS assessment based on LE alone, LE plus US, RI with LE plus US (CEM plus US), and RI alone. Pathology results or 1-year follow-up imaging served as the reference standard.

Results: 237 women with 262 palpable abnormalities were included (mean age, 51 years). Of the 262 palpable abnormalities, 116/262 (44%) had no imaging correlate and 242/262 (92%) were benign. RI alone had better specificity compared to LE plus US (Reader 1, 94% versus 89% (p = 0.009); Reader 2, 93% versus 88% (p = 0.03)), better positive predictive value (Reader 1, 52% versus 42% (p = 0.04); Reader 2, 53% versus 42% (p = 0.04)), and better accuracy (Reader 1, 93% versus 89% (p = 0.05); Reader 2, 93% versus 90% (p = 0.06)). CEM plus US was not significantly different in performance metrics versus LE plus US.

Conclusion: RI had better specificity compared to LE in combination with US. There was no difference in performance between CEM plus US and LE plus US, likely reflecting the weight US carries in radiologist decision-making. However, the results indicate that the absence of enhancement on RI in the setting of palpable lesions may help avoid benign biopsies.

References

Chan C, Coopey S, Freer P, Hughes K . False-negative rate of combined mammography and ultrasound for women with palpable breast masses. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015; 153(3):699-702. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3557-2. View

Leung S, Ben-Nachum I, Kornecki A . New Palpable Breast Lump With Recent Negative Mammogram: Is Repeat Mammography Necessary?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 207(1):200-4. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14799. View

Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg E, Jong R, Koomen M . Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012; 14(3):R94. PMC: 3446357. DOI: 10.1186/bcr3210. View

Sung J, Lebron L, Keating D, DAlessio D, Comstock C, Lee C . Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer. Radiology. 2019; 293(1):81-88. PMC: 6776233. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182660. View

Lobbes M, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen E, Nelemans P, van Roozendaal L . Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(7):1668-76. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5. View

Brown A, Phillips J, Slanetz P, Fein-Zachary V, Venkataraman S, Dialani V . Clinical Value of Mammography in the Evaluation of Palpable Breast Lumps in Women 30 Years Old and Older. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209(4):935-942. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17088. View

Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter C . Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138(3):168-75. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008. View

Francescone M, Jochelson M, Dershaw D, Sung J, Hughes M, Zheng J . Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83(8):1350-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.015. View

Lehman C, Lee C, Loving V, Portillo M, Peacock S, DeMartini W . Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199(5):1169-77. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8842. View

10.

Tennant S, James J, Cornford E, Chen Y, Burrell H, Hamilton L . Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves diagnostic accuracy in the symptomatic setting. Clin Radiol. 2016; 71(11):1148-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.05.009. View

11.

Mori M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Suzuki S, Daniels M, Watanabe C, Hirose M . Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts. Breast Cancer. 2016; 24(1):104-110. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-016-0681-8. View

12.

Sorin V, Yagil Y, Yosepovich A, Shalmon A, Gotlieb M, Halshtok Neiman O . Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Women With Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk and Dense Breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211(5):W267-W274. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19355. View

13.

Cheung Y, Lin Y, Wan Y, Yeow K, Huang P, Lo Y . Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(10):2394-403. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1. View

14.

Sorin V, Faermann R, Yagil Y, Shalmon A, Gotlieb M, Halshtok-Neiman O . Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings. Clin Imaging. 2020; 61:99-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.01.019. View

15.

Buist D, Porter P, Lehman C, Taplin S, White E . Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(19):1432-40. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh269. View

16.

Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A . Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2010; 21(3):565-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y. View

17.

Berg W, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong R, Pisano E, Barr R . Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012; 307(13):1394-404. PMC: 3891886. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.388. View

18.

Lehman C, Lee A, Lee C . Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 203(5):1142-53. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12725. View

19.

Lu Z, Hao C, Pan Y, Mao N, Wang X, Yin X . Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Versus Ultrasonography: Diagnostic Performance in Symptomatic Patients with Dense Breasts. Korean J Radiol. 2020; 21(4):442-449. PMC: 7082654. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0393. View