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

Horvat, Joao V.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-06865-8

2023-02-10

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract: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).

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Min Kaiyin,Tong Lingling,Tang Leilei,Li Wenjia,Ji Bin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-023-07034-7

2023-09-16

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract:Breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) are in need of a more patient-friendly imaging modality such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for monitoring therapy response. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performances of CEM and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) for assessing pathological complete response (pCR) in these patients.

oncology
Contrast-enhanced mammography and preoperative magnetic seed placement in breast cancer patients for the detection of residual disease following neoadjuvant systemic therapy

A Mariscal Martínez,E Iglesias Bravo,H Peris Alvà,P Rodríguez Martínez,M Luna Tomás,I Pascual Miguel,P Puyalto de Pablo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rxeng.2024.04.001

Abstract:Purpose: Assess whether contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) enables an evaluation of the residual size of breast tumours following neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) in patients initially marked with magnetic seed. Materials and methods: This single-centre prospective study was performed between March 2022 and April 2023 with patients with invasive breast carcinoma and lesional marking with magnetic seed. CEM was performed before and after NAST. The lesion size in CEM after NAST was compared to the pathological examination after surgery. Differences between sizes were evaluated and we determined the diagnostic capability indices. Results: The breast lesions marked with magnetic seed were successfully localised in the preoperative stage for the 42 patients included in the study and selective surgical excision was also achieved in all cases. Tumour diameter after NAST was determined by comparing enhancement on combined CEM images from before and after NAST. The mean diameter was 13.6 mm while post-surgical pathological examination determined the mean diameter to be 12.9 mm. There were therefore no statistically significant differences between the measurements. Conclusions: There is a positive correlation and similarity between CEM and pathological examination with regards to the detection of residual disease after NAST, with high specificity and PPV.
Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening

Kristen Coffey,Maxine S. Jochelson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110513

IF: 4.531

2022-11-01

European Journal of Radiology

Abstract: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.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Nina Bartolović,Ana Car Peterko,Manuela Avirović,Doris Šegota Ritoša,Emina Grgurević Dujmić,Petra Valković Zujić

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141575

IF: 3.6

2024-07-21

Diagnostics

Abstract:Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new imaging technique that allows morphologic, anatomic and functional imaging of the breast. The aim of our study was to validate contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to mammography (MMG) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in daily clinical practice. This retrospective study included 316 consecutive patients who underwent MMG, DBT and CEM at the Centre for Prevention and Diagnosis of Chronic Diseases of Primorsko-goranska County. Two breast radiologists independently analyzed the image data, without available anamnestic information and without the possibility of comparison with previous images, to determine the presence of suspicious lesions and their morphological features according to the established criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The diagnostic value of MMG, DBT and CEM was assessed by ROC analysis. The interobserver agreement was excellent. CEM showed higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity compared to MMG and DBT, the reporting time for CEM was significantly shorter, and CEM findings resulted in a significantly lower proportion of equivocal findings (BI-RADS 0), suggesting fewer additional procedures. In conclusion, CEM achieves high diagnostic accuracy while maintaining simplicity, reproducibility and applicability in complex clinical settings.

medicine, general & internal
Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges

T.J.A. van Nijnatten,S. Morscheid,P.A.T. Baltzer,P. Clauser,R. Alcantara,C.K. Kuhl,J.E. Wildberger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111312

IF: 4.531

2024-02-01

European Journal of Radiology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced breast MRI and recently also contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are available for breast imaging. The aim of the current overview is to explore existing evidence and ongoing challenges of contrast-enhanced breast imaging.METHODS: This narrative provides an introduction to the contrast-enhanced breast imaging modalities breast MRI and CEM. Underlying principle, techniques and BI-RADS reporting of both techniques are described and compared, and the following indications and ongoing challenges are discussed: problem-solving, high-risk screening, supplemental screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue, breast implants, neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) response monitoring, MRI-guided and CEM- guided biopsy.RESULTS: Technique and reporting for breast MRI are standardised, for the newer CEM standardisation is in progress. Similarly, compared to other modalities, breast MRI is well established as superior for problem-solving, screening women at high risk, screening women with extremely dense breast tissue or with implants; and for monitoring response to NST. Furthermore, MRI-guided biopsy is a reliable technique with low long-term false negative rates. For CEM, data is as yet either absent or limited, but existing results in these settings are promising.CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced breast imaging achieves highest diagnostic performance and should be considered essential. Of the two contrast-enhanced modalities, evidence of breast MRI superiority is ample, and preliminary results on CEM are promising, yet CEM warrants further study.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Can unenhanced MRI of the breast replace contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Beatrice Cavallo Marincola,Marianna Telesca,Fulvio Zaccagna,Frank Riemer,Michele Anzidei,Carlo Catalano,Federica Pediconi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185118773512

2018-05-09

Acta Radiologica

Abstract:Background The goals of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) are to reduce tumor volume and to offer a prognostic indicator in assessing treatment response. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) is an established method for evaluating response to NAC in patients with breast cancer. Purpose To validate the role of unenhanced MRI (ue-MRI) compared to CE-MRI for assessing response to NAC in women with breast cancer. Material and Methods Seventy-one patients with ongoing NAC for breast cancer underwent MRI before, during, and at the end of NAC. Ue-MRI was performed with T2-weighted sequences with iterative decomposition of water and fat and diffusion-weighted sequences. CE-MRI was performed using three-dimensional T1-weighted sequences before and after administration of gadobenate dimeglumine. Two blinded observers rated ue-MRI and CE-MRI for the evaluation of tumor response. Statistical analysis was performed to compare lesion size and ADC values changes during therapy, as well as inter-observer agreement. Results There were no statistically significant differences between ue-MRI and CE-MRI sequences for evaluation of lesion size at baseline and after every cycle of treatment ( P > 0.05). The mean tumor ADC values at baseline and across the cycles of NAC were significantly different for the responder group. Conclusion Ue-MRI can achieve similar results to CE-MRI for the assessment of tumor response to NAC. ADC values can differentiate responders from non-responders.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI for breast cancer staging: detection of additional malignant lesions not seen on conventional imaging

Donna B. Taylor,Sally Burrows,Christobel M. Saunders,Paul M. Parizel,Angela Ives

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-022-00318-5

2023-02-13

European Radiology Experimental

Abstract:Abstract Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is more available than MRI for breast cancer staging but may not be as sensitive in assessing disease extent. We compared CEM and MRI in this setting. Methods Fifty-nine women with invasive breast cancer underwent preoperative CEM and MRI. Independent pairs of radiologists read CEM studies (after reviewing a 9-case set prior to study commencement) and MRI studies (with between 5 and 25 years of experience in breast imaging). Additional lesions were assigned National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC) scores. Positive lesions (graded NBCC ≥ 3) likely to influence surgical management underwent ultrasound and/or needle biopsy. True-positive lesions were positive on imaging and pathology (invasive or in situ ). False-positive lesions were positive on imaging but negative on pathology (high-risk or benign) or follow-up. False-negative lesions were negative on imaging (NBCC < 3 or not identified) but positive on pathology. Results The 59 women had 68 biopsy-proven malignant lesions detected on mammography/ultrasound, of which MRI demonstrated 66 (97%) and CEM 67 (99%) ( p = 1.000). Forty-one additional lesions were detected in 29 patients: six of 41 (15%) on CEM only, 23/41 (56%) on MRI only, 12/41 (29%) on both; CEM detected 1/6 and MRI 6/6 malignant additional lesions ( p = 0.063), with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 1/13 (8%) and 6/26 (23%) ( p = 0.276). Conclusions While MRI and CEM were both highly sensitive for lesions detected at mammography/ultrasound, CEM may not be as sensitive as MRI in detecting additional otherwise occult foci of malignancy. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12613000684729
MR-contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) for follow-up of breast cancer patients: a "pros and cons" debate

Julia Camps-Herrero,Ruud Pijnappel,Corinne Balleyguier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10684-w

IF: 7.034

2024-03-16

European Radiology

Abstract: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.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
The role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast

E. Giannotti,T.J.A. Van Nijnatten,Y. Chen,G. Bicchierai,J. Nori,D. De Benedetto,U. Lalji,A. Lee,J. James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2024.01.035

IF: 3.389

2024-02-13

Clinical Radiology

Abstract:PURPOSE To assess the performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative staging of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) of the breast. MATERIALS & METHODS Multicentre, multivendor multinational retrospective study of women with a histological diagnosis of ILC who undergone CEM from 12/2013 to 12/2021. Index lesion size and multifocality were recorded for 2D mammography, CEM, and when available MRI. Comparison with histological data was made for the women treated by primary surgical excision. Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland and Altman's analysis of agreement were used to assess differences with a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS 115 ILC were included, 46 (40%) presented symptomatically and 69 were screening detected. CEM demonstrated superior sensitivity when compared to standard mammography. The correlation between the histological size measured on the surgical excision specimen size was greater than with standard mammography (r=0.626 and 0.295 respectively, p=.001), with 19% of lobular carcinomas not visible without contrast agent. The sensitivity of CEM for multifocal disease was greater than standard mammography (70% and 20% respectively, p<0.0001). CEM overestimated tumour size by an average of 1.5 times, with the size difference increasing for larger tumour. When MRI was performed (22), tumour size was also overestimated by an average of 1.3 times. The degree of size overestimation was similar for both modalities, with the tumour size on CEM being on average 0.5cm larger than MRI. CONCLUSION CEM is a useful tool for the local staging of lobular carcinomas and could be an alternative to breast MRI.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Contrast-Enhanced Mammogram: A New Game-Changer in Breast Imaging. Indications with Case-Based Experience

Niketa Chotai,Siu Cheng Loke,Ern Yu Tan,Chotai Niketa,Loke Siu Cheng,Tan Ern Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/abcr.2021.104016

2021-01-01

Advances in Breast Cancer Research

Abstract:Mammograms are the mainstay of diagnostic breast imaging and cancer screening. Despite advances in technology such as Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), these imaging techniques are purely structural, and are unable to overcome shortcomings in mammography posed by dense breast parenchyma. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive modality in breast imaging, due to its functional aspect s in addition to structural imaging with this modality. The use of MRI is however constrained by cost and availability. The utilization of intravenous contrast with mammograms introduces a functional element to imaging. This greatly improves the sensitivity of the examination, approaching sensitivity levels of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the detection of primary breast cancer. With increased sensitivity afforded by assessment of tumor neo - vascularity, as well as its low cost, low energy imaging that is more readily available than MRI, Contrast - Enhanced Mammography (CEM) if more readily available than MRI, this imaging modality is a potential game - changer in breast imaging. In this article, we share our experience in the use of CEM, for indications previously reserved for MRI, with the literature review of these indications. In resonance with prior studies, we echo the ease of performing and reporting of CEM as well as greater patient comfort as the distinct advantages of CEM. In spite of slightly higher radiation dose and some risk s related to contrast media, functional results at a significantly lower cost may change h ow we practice breast imaging in the future using CEM.
State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography

Matthew F Covington,Samantha Salmon,Bradley D Weaver,Laurie L Fajardo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae017

2024-01-20

British Journal of Radiology

Abstract:Abstract 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.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Contrast‐enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging

Donna B Taylor,Meredith A Kessell,Paul M Parizel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13789

2024-11-02

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Abstract:Summary 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.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Insights from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)

Claudia Lucia Piccolo,Marina Sarli,Matteo Pileri,Manuela Tommasiello,Aurora Rofena,Valerio Guarrasi,Paolo Soda,Bruno Beomonte Zobel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13216486

IF: 3.9

2024-10-30

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Objectives: To evaluate the correlation between radiomic features extracted from contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) tumor lesions and peritumoral background with prognostic factors in breast cancer (BC). Methods: In this retrospective, single-center study, 134 women with histologically confirmed breast cancer underwent CEM examination. Radiomic features were extracted from manually segmented lesions and lesion contours were automatically delineated using PyRadiomics. The extracted features were categorized into seven classes: First-order Features, Shape Features (2D), Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Gray Level Run Length Matrix (GLRLM), Gray Level Size Zone Matrix (GLSZM), and Neighboring Gray Tone Difference Matrix (NGTDM). Histological examination assessed tumor type, grade, receptor structure (ER, PgR, HER2), Ki67 index, and lymph node involvement. Pearson correlation and multivariate regression were applied to evaluate associations between radiomic features and prognostic factors. Results: Significant correlations were found between First-order Features and prognostic factors such as ER, PgR, and Ki67 (p < 0.05). GLCM-based texture features showed strong associations with Ki67 and HER2 (p < 0.01). Radiomic features from peritumoral regions, especially shape and GLSZM metrics, were significantly correlated with Ki67 and lymph node involvement. Conclusions: Radiomic analysis of both tumor and peritumoral regions offers significant insights into BC prognosis. These findings support the integration of radiomics into personalized diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, potentially improving clinical decision making in BC management.

medicine, general & internal
Accuracy of Preoperative Contrast-enhanced Cone Beam Breast CT in Assessment of Residual Tumor after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Comparative Study with Breast MRI

Yafei Wang,Mengran Zhao,Yue Ma,Aidi Liu,Yueqiang Zhu,Lu Yin,Zhiran Liang,Zhiye Qu,Hong Lu,Ying Ma,Zhaoxiang Ye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.12.027

IF: 5.482

2023-01-07

Academic Radiology

Abstract:Rationale and Objectives To compare the accuracy of preoperative contrast-enhanced cone beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT) and MRI in assessment of residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Materials and methods Residual tumor assessments in 91 female patients were performed on preoperative CE-CBBCT and MRI images after NAC. The agreements of tumor size between imaging and pathology were tested by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Subgroup analyses were set according to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), calcifications and molecular subtypes. Correlated-samples Wilcoxon Signed-rank test was used to analyze the difference between imaging and pathology in total and subgroups. AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were calculated to compare the performance of CE-CBBCT and MRI in predicting pathological complete response (pCR). Results Comparing with pathology, the agreement on CE-CBBCT was good (ICC = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.35-0.78), whereas on MRI was moderate (ICC = 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.77), and overestimation on CE-CBBCT was less than that on MRI (median (interquartile range, IQR): 0.24 [0.00, 1.31] cm vs. 0.67 [0.00, 1.81] cm; p = 0.000). In subgroup analysis, CE-CBBCT showed superior accuracy than MRI when residual DCIS ( p = 0.000) and calcifications ( p = 0.000) contained, as well as luminal A ( p = 0.043) and luminal B ( p = 0.009) breast cancer. CE-CBBCT and MRI performed comparable in predicting pCR, AUCs were 0.749 and 0.733 respectively ( p > 0.05). Conclusion CE-CBBCT showed superior accuracy in assessment of residual tumor compared with MRI, especially when residual DCIS or calcifications contained and luminal subtype. The performance of preoperative CE-CBBCT in predicting pCR was comparable to MRI. CE-CBBCT could be an alternative method used for preoperative assessment after NAC.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Diagnostic Accuracy and Incremental Value of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared With Full Field Digital Mammography in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center

Palak Popat,Venugopal Prudveesh Kumar Reddy Nandi,Aparna Katdare,Purvi Haria,Meenakshi Thakur,Suyash Kulkarni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.68601

2024-09-04

Cureus

Abstract:Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and incremental value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared with full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Methodology: A retrospective analysis was performed with 150 consecutive patients who underwent CEM at our institute between November 2020 and February 2021, fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The first round of analysis included a review of FFDM with an interpretation of findings as per the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) lexicon and the assignment of the BIRADS category to the detected abnormalities. After this documentation, a second round of analysis included a review of recombined subtracted images of CEM. The diagnostic accuracy of FFDM and CEM was calculated with histopathology as the gold standard. Results: Among the 150 cases assessed, 202 lesions were detected with histopathological correlation, of which 42 were benign and 160 were malignant. The sensitivity of FFDM was 90.6% compared to 98.12% for CEM. The specificity of FFDM was 66.7% compared to 76.19% for CEM. The negative predictive value (NPV) of FFDM was low, at 65.12%; CEM showed a better NPV, at 91.43%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was almost the same, at 94.01% for CEM and 91.19% for FFDM. The area under the curve (AUC) was superior for CEM compared to that of FFDM, with a value of 0.87. FFDM had a low sensitivity, especially in dense breast parenchyma, at 88.79% and a specificity of 70%, whereas CEM showed a higher sensitivity, specificity, and NPV, measuring 99.14%, 76.67%, and 95.83%, respectively. Conclusion: Superior sensitivity and high NPV for CEM make it a preferable modality compared with FFDM, especially in dense breast parenchyma, where CEM overcomes the limitations of FFDM. We conclude that CEM is superior to FFDM in evaluating the extent of disease, additional satellite lesion detection, and ruling out ambiguous findings.
Contrast Enhancement in Breast Cancer: Magnetic Resonance vs. Mammography: A 10-Year Systematic Review

Francesco Filippone,Zohra Boudagga,Francesca Frattini,Gaetano Federico Fortuna,Davide Razzini,Anna Tambasco,Veronica Menardi,Alessandro Balbiano di Colcavagno,Serena Carriero,Anna Clelia Lucia Gambaro,Alessandro Carriero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212400

IF: 3.6

2024-10-29

Diagnostics

Abstract:PURPOSE: Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance (CEMR) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) are important diagnostic tools to evaluate breast cancer patients, and both are objects of interest in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to select publications from the last ten years in order to evaluate the literature contributions related to the frequency of contrast agents used, administration techniques and the presence of adverse reactions. METHODS: We have selected, according to the PRISMA statement, publications reviewed on Pub Med in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. The search engine was activated using the following keywords: "CESM", "CEM", "CEDM", "Contrast mammography" for CEM, "DCE-MRI", "Contrast Enhancement MRI" for CEMR, excluding reviews, book chapters and meta-analyses. From the total number of publications, we made a preliminary selection based on titles and abstracts and excluded all articles published in languages other than English and all experimental studies performed on surgical specimen or animal population, as well as all articles for which the extended version was not available. Two readers evaluated all the articles and compiled a pre-compiled form accordingly. RESULTS: After a preliminary collection of 571 CEM publications, 118 articles were selected, relating to an overall population of 21,178 patients. From a total of 3063 CEMR publications, 356 articles relating to an overall population of 45,649 patients were selected. The most used contrast agents are Iohexol for CEM (39.83%) and Gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA) for CEMR (32.5%). Regarding the CEM contrast administration protocol, in 84.7% of cases a dose of 1.5 mL/kg was used with an infusion rate of 2–3 mL/s. Regarding the CEMR infusion protocol, in 71% of cases a dose of 1 mmol/kg was used at an infusion rate of 2–4 mL/s. Twelve out of 118 CEM articles reported allergic reactions, involving 29 patients (0.13%). In DCE-MRI, only one out of 356 articles reported allergic reactions, involving two patients (0.004%). No severe reactions were observed in either cohort of exams. CONCLUSIONS: CEM and CEMR are essential contrast methods to evaluate breast diseases. However, from the literature analysis, although there are preferences on the uses of the contrast agent (Iohexol for CESM, G-DTPA for CEMR), a wide range of molecules are still used in contrast methods, with different administration protocols. Based on the collected data, it is possible to state that both methods are safe, and no severe reactions were observed in our evaluation.

medicine, general & internal
Value of ultrafast and standard dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the presence and extension of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Erina Kato,Naoko Mori,Shunji Mugikura,Satoko Sato,Takanori Ishida,Kei Takase

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-021-01110-y

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrafast and standard dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI in evaluating the residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer. Materials and methods: Sixty-seven consecutive patients underwent MRI after NAC. Visual analysis of enhancement was performed on ultrafast and standard DCE-MRI, and compared between no residual disease and residual disease groups. The lesion diameters measured on the last phase of ultrafast DCE-MRI and early and delayed phases of standard DCE-MRI were compared with pathological diameter of entire residual cancer and residual invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Results: The visual analysis in the delayed phase of standard DCE-MRI exhibited the highest sensitivity (90%), whereas ultrafast DCE-MRI revealed the highest positive predictive value (92%). There were no significant differences between the diameters in the delayed phase of the standard DCE-MRI and the pathological entire residual cancer (p = 0.97), and the diameters in ultrafast DCE-MRI and the pathological residual IDC (p = 0.97). Conclusion: The delayed phase of standard DCE-MRI may be effective for detecting the residual disease and evaluating the extension of entire residual cancer. Enhancement in ultrafast DCE-MRI may be strongly suggestive of the presence of residual disease, and effective for evaluating the extension of residual IDC.
Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI in the assessment of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer: a retrospective study

Mona Ahmed Fouad Hafez,Asmaa Zeinhom,Dina Abdallah Abbas Hamed,Galal Rafik Mohamed Ghaly,Sally Fouad Kamel Tadros

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02841851231198346

2023-09-06

Acta Radiologica

Abstract:Background Breast cancer multifocality and multicentricity diagnosis influences the surgeon's choice between applying breast conservative therapy or performing mastectomy. Purpose To assess the role of contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of preoperative breast cancer multifocality and multicentricity and to assess their accuracy, agreement and impact on the surgical management. Material and Methods The study retrospectively included cases over a 5-year period. After analysis and interpretation of suspicious breast lesions, a comparative evaluation of CEM and MRI was conducted with the assessment of diagnostic indices, including sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The kappa (κ) measure of agreement between both modalities was measured. The postoperative specimen pathology was the reference standard. Results One hundred and twenty-two female cases with 126 breast lesions were evaluated. Specimen pathology, MRI and CEM showed a single neoplastic lesion in 67.5%, 35% and 48.5% of cases, respectively, and multiple neoplastic lesions in 32.5%, 65% and 51.6% of cases, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MRI were 95.12%, 49.41%,and 64.29%, and the CEM values were 85.37%, 64.71% and 71.43%, respectively. The κ value was 0.592 with an intermediate agreement between both modalities. When comparing between both modalities, enhancing foci showed a statistically significant difference, although there were no statistically significant difference in terms of high breast density or molecular subtype. Conclusion In terms of breast cancer multifocality and multicentricity evaluation, MRI showed a higher sensitivity, while CEM showed a higher specificity, and there was moderate agreement between the two modalities.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
Evaluating the impact of delayed-phase imaging in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on breast cancer staging: A comparative study of abbreviated versus complete protocol

Naomi Calabrò,Flavia Abruzzese,Eleonora Valentini,Anna Clelia Lucia Gambaro,Silvia Attanasio,Barbara Cannillo,Marco Brambilla,Alessandro Carriero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01838-3

Abstract:Purpose: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an innovative imaging tool for breast cancer detection, involving intravenous injection of a contrast medium and the assessment of lesion enhancement in two phases: early and delayed. The aim of the study was to analyze the topographic concordance of lesions detected in the early- versus delayed phase acquisitions. Materials and methods: Approved by the Ethics Committee (No. 118/20), this prospective study included 100 women with histopathological confirmed breast neoplasia (B6) at the Radiodiagnostics Department of the Maggiore della Carità Hospital of Novara, Italy from May 1, 2021, to October 17, 2022. Participants underwent CEM examinations using a complete protocol, encompassing both early- and delayed image acquisitions. Three experienced radiologists blindly analyzed the CEM images for contrast enhancement to determine the topographic concordance of the identified lesions. Two readers assessed the complete study (protocol A), while one reader assessed the protocol without the delayed phase (protocol B). The average glandular dose (AGD) of the entire procedure was also evaluated. Results: The analysis demonstrated high concordance among the three readers in the topographical identification of lesions within individual quadrants of both breasts, with a Cohen's κ > 0.75, except for the lower inner quadrant of the right breast and the retro-areolar region of the left breast. The mean whole AGD was 29.2 mGy. The mean AGD due to CEM amounted to 73% of the whole AGD (21.2 mGy). The AGD attributable to the delayed phase of CEM contributed to 36% of the whole AGD (10.5 mGy). Conclusions: As we found no significant discrepancy between the readings of the two protocols, we conclude that delayed-phase image acquisition in CEM does not provide essential diagnostic benefits for effective disease management. Instead, it contributes to unnecessary radiation exposure.
Role of contrast-enhanced mammogram as an adjunct to tomosynthesis in evaluation of circumscribed breast lesions

Dharmalingam Porkodi,Jagannathan Devimeenal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae130

2024-10-01

Abstract:Objectives: We evaluated the role of contrast-enhanced mammogram (CEM) in the characterization of circumscribed lesions detected in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and correlated with histopathology. Methods: A retrospective study was done on 205 circumscribed breast masses detected with DBT and for whom CEM was done before core biopsy/excision biopsy. Morphology of lesion enhancement was noted at a 2-min CEM image and depending on the enhancement pattern, they were classified as benign, malignant, and indeterminate. Indeterminate lesions were further characterized by contrast kinetics at 8 min and divided into benign and malignant lesions. The results were correlated with histopathology reports. Results: Among the 205 lesions, 158 were benign and 47 were malignant by histopathology. All 47 malignant cases were diagnosed as malignant (sensitivity-100%) and 150 out of 158 benign lesions were diagnosed as benign by CEM (specificity-95%). Eight benign lesions were reported as malignant (false positive) by CEM. Positive predictive value was 85.4% (47/55); negative predictive value (NPV) was 100% (150/150); accuracy was 96% (197/205). Conclusions: The high sensitivity of CEM in our study suggests that CEM helps in the early diagnosis of benign-looking circumscribed breast malignancies. The high NPV of CEM helps to avoid unnecessary biopsies and interventions in benign lesions. Advances in knowledge: This study describes the contrast enhancement pattern of benign and malignant circumscribed breast lesions and thereby helps in the diagnosis of malignancy at an early stage. CEM is a promising adjunct tool since it offers functional imaging as a supplement to anatomical imaging by DBT.

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

Head-to-head comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant therapy in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Contrast-enhanced mammography and preoperative magnetic seed placement in breast cancer patients for the detection of residual disease following neoadjuvant systemic therapy

Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening

Validation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as Breast Imaging Modality Compared to Standard Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges

Can unenhanced MRI of the breast replace contrast-enhanced MRI in assessing response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus MRI for breast cancer staging: detection of additional malignant lesions not seen on conventional imaging

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

The role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast

Contrast-Enhanced Mammogram: A New Game-Changer in Breast Imaging. Indications with Case-Based Experience

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

Contrast‐enhanced mammography improves patient access to functional breast imaging

Insights from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)

Accuracy of Preoperative Contrast-enhanced Cone Beam Breast CT in Assessment of Residual Tumor after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Comparative Study with Breast MRI

Diagnostic Accuracy and Incremental Value of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared With Full Field Digital Mammography in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center

Contrast Enhancement in Breast Cancer: Magnetic Resonance vs. Mammography: A 10-Year Systematic Review

Value of ultrafast and standard dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the presence and extension of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Contrast-enhanced mammography versus breast MRI in the assessment of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer: a retrospective study

Evaluating the impact of delayed-phase imaging in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on breast cancer staging: A comparative study of abbreviated versus complete protocol

Role of contrast-enhanced mammogram as an adjunct to tomosynthesis in evaluation of circumscribed breast lesions