Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study

Eur Radiol. 2022 Nov;32(11):7388-7399. doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08868-3. Epub 2022 Jun 1.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls.

Methods: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar's test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology.

Results: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5-48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7-64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2-97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1-78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images.

Conclusions: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity.

Key points: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%.

Keywords: Biopsy, needle; Breast neoplasms; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Mammography, contrast-enhanced; Mass screening.

MeSH terms

  • Breast Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging
  • Breast Neoplasms* / pathology
  • Calcinosis* / pathology
  • Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating* / pathology
  • Contrast Media / pharmacology
  • Early Detection of Cancer / methods
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Mammography / methods
  • Middle Aged

Substances

  • Contrast Media