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.

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

Interobserver and inter-modalities agreement of contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system(CEUS LI-RADS) and magnetic resonance imaging liver imaging reporting and data system(MRI LI-RADS) for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients

Inter-reader agreement of the BI-RADS CEM lexicon

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

Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer

Preoperative Staging in Breast Cancer: Intraindividual Comparison of Unenhanced MRI Combined With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI

Analysis of Interreader Agreement in Structured Reports of Pelvic Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer Guidelines.

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

Inter-reader Agreement for Prostate Cancer Detection Using Micro-ultrasound: A Multi-institutional Study

A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT

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

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

PI-QUAL version 2: A Multi-Reader reproducibility study on multiparametric MRI from a tertiary referral center

Comparison of Performance in Diagnosis and Characterization of Breast Lesions: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography vs. Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The Correlation between Morpho-Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Features and Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

Inter-reader agreement of CEUS LI-RADS among radiologists with different levels of experience

Characterization of common breast MRI abnormalities: comparison between abbreviated and full MRI protocols

CT and MRI radiomic features of lung cancer (NSCLC): comparison and software consistency

Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT) and breast MRI

Comparative Diagnostic Efficacy of Abbreviated and Full Protocol Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis

Head-to-head Comparison of Perfluorobutane Contrast-Enhanced US and Multiparametric MRI for Breast Cancer: a Prospective, Multicenter Study