Contrast-enhanced mammography in breast cancer screening: our experiences

Dijana Nićiforović; Marijana Basta Nikolić; Zorka Drvendžija; Olivera Nikolić; Aleksandra  Mijatović; Sonja Lukač; Sanja Stojanović

doi:10.2298/VSP240606005N

Dijana Nićiforović University Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Center for Radiology, Novi Sad, Serbia; †University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Marijana Basta Nikolić University Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Center for Radiology, Novi Sad, Serbia; †University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Asist. dr Zorka Drvendžija Medical Faculty University in Novi Sad
Olivera Nikolić University Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Center for Radiology, Novi Sad, Serbia; †University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Aleksandra Mijatović University Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Center for Radiology, Novi Sad, Serbia
Sonja Lukač University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
Sanja Stojanović University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP240606005N

Keywords: breast cancer;, diagnosis;, differential diagnosis;, mammography;, mass screening;, sensitivity and specificity;, ultrasonography, mammary.

Abstract

Background/Aim. Breast cancer is a leading global health concern. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) presents a promising advancement in early breast cancer detection, excelling in sensitivity, specificity, and cost-effectiveness. The aim of the study was to assess the overall diagnostic efficacy of CEM in breast cancer screening, particularly in distinguishing benign from malignant lesions in dense breasts. Methods. A two-year retrospective study was conducted at the Center for Radiology, including a total of 279 women undergoing CEM following standard mammography. Results. CEM demonstrated high sensitivity (92.4%), specificity (75.1%), and a noteworthy negative predictive value of 97.0%, significantly reducing unnecessary biopsies. Conclusion. CEM is a valuable screening tool, offering enhanced diagnostic capabilities and the potential to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies. It is particularly beneficial for patients with dense breasts or inconclusive traditional mammography results.

References

World Health Organization. Breast Cancer [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2024 [accessed 2024, Dec 2]. Available from: https://

www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer

American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2022–2024 [Internet]. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. 2022. [cited on 2024 May 10; accessed 2024 Dec 9]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/

research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-fig

ures/2022-2024-breast-cancer-fact-figures-acs.pdf

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71(1): 7–33. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71(4): 359.

Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356(3): 227–36.

Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on in-cremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 2008; 44(4): 539–44.

Lehman CD, Lee JM, DeMartini WB, Hippe DS, Rendi MH, Ka-lish G, et al. Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108(3): djv349.

Perry H, Phillips J, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Fein-Zachary VJ, Kari-mova EJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography: A systemat-ic guide to interpretation and reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212(1): 222–31.

Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with con-ventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 2012; 266(3): 743–51.

Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229(1): 261–8.

Elder K, Matheson J, Nickson C, Box G, Ellis J, Mou A, et al. Contrast enhanced mammography in breast cancer surveil-lance. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023; 199(2): 221–30.

Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz DM, Amer H, In-gold-Heppner B, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammogra-phy: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146(2): 371–81.

Lawson MB, Partridge SC, Hippe DS, Rahbar H, Lam DL, Lee CI, et al. Comparative Performance of Contrast-enhanced Mammography, Abbreviated Breast MRI, and Standard Breast MRI for Breast Cancer Screening. Radiology 2023; 308(2): e230576.

Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Yeow KM, Huang PC, Lo YF, et al. 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.

Ghaderi KF, Phillips J, Perry H, Lotfi P, Mehta T. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: Current Applications and Future Directions. Radiographics 2019; 39(7): 1907–20.

Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammog-raphy: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228(3): 842–50.

Lobbes MB, Smidt ML, Houwers J, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Wildberger JE. Contrast-enhanced mammography: techniques, current re-sults, and potential indications. Clin Radiol 2013; 68(9): 935–44.

Chiu TM, Chu SY. Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media. Biomedicines 2022; 10(5): 1036.

Neeter LMFH, Raat HPJF, Alcantara R, Robbe Q, Smidt ML, Wildberger JE, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know. BJR Open 2021; 3(1): 20210034.

McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, Carter RE, Fleming CJ, Misra S, et al. Intravenous contrast material-induced nephrop-athy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 2013; 267(1): 106–18. Erratum in: Radiology 2016; 278(1): 306.

Marzogi A, Baltzer PAT, Kapetas P, Milos RI, Bernathova M, Helbich TH, et al. Is the Level of Contrast Enhancement on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) Associated with the Presence and Biological Aggressiveness of Breast Cancer? Diagnostics 2023; 13(4): 754.

Jochelson MS, Lobbes MBI. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art. Radiology 2021; 299(1): 36–48.

Moffa G, Galati F, Maroncelli R, Rizzo V, Cicciarelli F, Pasculli M, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Digi-tal Mammography versus Conventional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13(15): 2520.

Catalano O, Fusco R, De Muzio F, Simonetti I, Palumbo P, Bruno F, et al. Recent Advances in Ultrasound Breast Imaging: From Industry to Clinical Practice. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13(5): 980.

Sood R, Rositch AF, Shakoor D, Ambinder E, Pool KL, Pollack E, et al. Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Detection Globally: A Sys-tematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Glob Oncol 2019; 5: 1–17.

Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004; 233(3): 830–49.

Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Tosto S, Monetti F, et al. Adjunct Screening With Tomosynthesis or Ul-trasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts: Interim Report of a Prospective Comparative Trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34(16): 1882−88.

Youn I, Choi S, Choi YJ, Moon JH, Park HJ, Ham SY, et al. Contrast enhanced digital mammography versus magnetic res-onance imaging for accurate measurement of the size of breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2019; 92(1098): 20180929.

Sammarra M, Piccolo CL, Sarli M, Stefanucci R, Tommasiello M, Orsaria P, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography-Guided Biopsy: Preliminary Results of a Single-Center Retrospective Experience. J Clin Med 2024; 13(4): 933.

Cozzi A, Magni V, Zanardo M, Schiaffino S, Sardanelli F. Con-trast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Me-ta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance. Radiology 2022; 302(3): 568–81.

Nicosia L, Bozzini AC, Pesapane F, Rotili A, Marinucci I, Signorel-li G, et al. Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Applica-tion and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting. Cancers (Ba-sel) 2023; 15(9): 2413.

Cozzi A, Schiaffino S, Fanizza M, Magni V, Menicagli L, Monaco CG, et al. Contrast- enhanced mammography for the assess-ment of screening recalls: a two-centre study. Eur Radiol 2022; 32(11): 7388–99.

Vignoli C, Bicchierai G, De Benedetto D, Boeri C, Vanzi E, Miele V, et al. Role of preoperative breast dual‐energy con-trast‐enhanced digital mammography in ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2019; 25(5): 1034–6.

Cheung YC, Juan YH, Lin YC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, Ueng SH, et al. Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Enhancement Analysis on BI-RADS 4 Non-Mass Microcalci-fications in Screened Women. PLoS One 2016; 11(9): e0162740.