Search

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a viable alternative to contrast-enhanced breast MRI, and it may increase access to vascular imaging while reducing examination cost. Intravenous iodinated contrast materials are used in CEM to enhance the visualization of tumor neovascularity. After injection, imaging is performed with dual-energy digital mammography, which helps provide a low-energy image and a recombined or iodine image that depict enhancing lesions in the breast. CEM has been demonstrated to help improve accuracy compared with digital mammography and US in women with abnormal screening mammographic findings or symptoms of breast cancer. It has also been demonstrated to approach the accuracy of breast MRI in preoperative staging of patients with breast cancer and in monitoring response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There are early encouraging results from trials evaluating CEM in the screening of women who are at an increased risk of breast cancer. Although CEM is a promising tool, it slightly increases radiation dose and carries a small risk of adverse reactions to contrast materials. This review details the CEM technique, diagnostic and screening uses, and future applications, including artificial intelligence and radiomics. (C) RSNA, 2021

BACKGROUND: Contrast agent–enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to be more sensitive and specific than two-dimensional full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting. Few studies have reported on its performance in the screening setting. PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of CEDM for breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included women who underwent dual-energy CEDM for breast cancer screening from December 2012 through April 2016. Medical records were reviewed for age, risk factors, short-interval follow-up and biopsies recommended, and cancers detected. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value of abnormal findings at screening (PPV(1)), positive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV(3)), and negative predictive value were determined. RESULTS: In the study period 904 baseline CEDMs were performed. Mean age was 51.8 years ± 9.4 (standard deviation). Of 904 patients, 700 (77.4%) had dense breasts, 247 (27.3%) had a family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative age 50 years or younger, and 363 (40.2%) a personal history of breast cancer. The final Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System score was 1 or 2 in 832 of 904 (92.0%) patients, score of 3 in 25 of 904 (2.8%) patients, and score of 4 or 5 in 47 of 904 (5.2%) patients. By using CEDM, 15 cancers were diagnosed in 14 of 904 women (cancer detection rate, 15.5 of 1000). PPV(3) was 29.4% (15 of 51). At least 1-year follow up was available in 858 women. There were two interval cancers. Sensitivity was 50.0% (eight of 16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.7%, 75.3%) on the low-energy images compared with 87.5% (14 of 16; 95% CI: 61.7%, 98.4%) for the entire study (low-energy and iodine images; P = .03). Specificity was 93.7% (789 of 842; 95% CI: 91.8%, 95.2%); PPV(1) was 20.9% (14 of 67; 95% CI: 11.9%, 32.6%), and negative predictive value was 99.7% (789 of 791; 95% CI: 99.09%, 99.97%). CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced digital mammography is a promising technique for screening women with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer. © RSNA, 2019

Purpose To assess the extent of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at contrast material-enhanced (CE) spectral mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, to evaluate interreader agreement in BPE assessment, and to examine the relationships between clinical factors and BPE. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective, institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant study. Two hundred seventy-eight women from 25 to 76 years of age with increased breast cancer risk who underwent CE spectral mammography and MR imaging for screening or staging from 2010 through 2014 were included. Three readers independently rated BPE on CE spectral mammographic and MR images with the ordinal scale: minimal, mild, moderate, or marked. To assess pairwise agreement between BPE levels on CE spectral mammographic and MR images and among readers, weighted κ coefficients with quadratic weights were calculated. For overall agreement, mean κ values and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The univariate and multivariate associations between BPE and clinical factors were examined by using generalized estimating equations separately for CE spectral mammography and MR imaging. Results Most women had minimal or mild BPE at both CE spectral mammography (68%-76%) and MR imaging (69%-76%). Between CE spectral mammography and MR imaging, the intrareader agreement ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = 0.55-0.67). Overall agreement on BPE levels between CE spectral mammography and MR imaging and among readers was substantial (κ = 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.61, 0.70). With both modalities, BPE demonstrated significant association with menopausal status, prior breast radiation therapy, hormonal treatment, breast density on CE spectral mammographic images, and amount of fibroglandular tissue on MR images (P < .001 for all). Conclusion There was substantial agreement between readers for BPE detected on CE spectral mammographic and MR images. © RSNA, 2016.

To assess the incidence of benign and malignant internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging among women with a history of treated breast cancer and silicone implant reconstruction.The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived informed consent. Women were identified who (a) had breast cancer, (b) underwent silicone implant oncoplastic surgery, and (c) underwent postoperative implant-protocol MR imaging with or without positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) between 2000 and 2013. The largest IMLNs were measured. A benign IMLN was pathologically proven or defined as showing 1 year of imaging stability and/or no clinical evidence of disease. Malignant IMLNs were pathologically proven. Incidence of IMLN and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated on a per-patient level by using proportions and exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess the difference in axis size.In total, 923 women with breast cancer and silicone implants were included (median age, 46 years; range, 22-89 years). The median time between reconstructive surgery and first MR imaging examination was 49 months (range, 5-513 months). Of the 923 women, 347 (37.6%) had IMLNs at MR imaging. Median short- and long-axis measurements were 0.40 cm (range, 0.20-1.70 cm) and 0.70 cm (range, 0.30-1.90 cm), respectively. Two hundred seven of 923 patients (22.4%) had adequate follow-up; only one of the 207 IMLNs was malignant, with a PPV of 0.005 (95% CI: 0.000, 0.027). Fifty-eight of 923 patients (6.3%) had undergone PET/CT; of these, 39 (67.2%) had IMLN at MR imaging. Twelve of the 58 patients (20.7%) with adequate follow-up had fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose-avid IMLN, with a median standardized uptake value of 2.30 (range, 1.20-6.10). Only one of the 12 of the fluorodeoxyglucose-avid IMLNs was malignant, with a PPV of 0.083 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.385).IMLNs identified at implant-protocol breast MR imaging after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer are overwhelmingly more likely to be benign than malignant. Imaging follow-up instead of immediate metastatic work-up may be warranted.

To determine feasibility of performing bilateral dual-energy (DE) contrast agent-enhanced (CE) digital mammography and to evaluate its performance compared with conventional digital mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in women with known breast cancer.This study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was obtained. Patient accrual began in March 2010 and ended in August 2011. Mean patient age was 49.6 years (range, 25-74 years). Feasibility was evaluated in 10 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who were injected with 1.5 mL per kilogram of body weight of iohexol and imaged between 2.5 and 10 minutes after injection. Once feasibility was confirmed, 52 women with newly diagnosed cancer who had undergone breast MR imaging gave consent to undergo DE CE digital mammography. Positive findings were confirmed with pathologic findings.Feasibility was confirmed with no adverse events. Visualization of tumor enhancement was independent of timing after contrast agent injection for up to 10 minutes. MR imaging and DE CE digital mammography both depicted 50 (96%) of 52 index tumors; conventional mammography depicted 42 (81%). Lesions depicted by using DE CE digital mammography ranged from 4 to 67 mm in size (median, 17 mm). DE CE digital mammography depicted 14 (56%) of 25 additional ipsilateral cancers compared with 22 (88%) of 25 for MR imaging. There were two false-positive findings with DE CE digital mammography and 13 false-positive findings with MR imaging. There was one contralateral cancer, which was not evident with either modality.Bilateral DE CE digital mammography was feasible and easily accomplished. It was used to detect known primary tumors at a rate comparable to that of MR imaging and higher than that of conventional digital mammography. DE CE digital mammography had a lower sensitivity for detecting additional ipsilateral cancers than did MR imaging, but the specificity was higher. © RSNA, 2012.