Abstract
Purpose
To compare the diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and breast MRI in evaluations of breast cancer, with a focus on the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) levels.
Methods
The present study included women who underwent CEDM and breast MRI to evaluate the disease extent of breast cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. Readers judged BPE levels (minimal-mild or moderate-marked) on CEDM, and were asked to assign findings suggesting malignancy using the following criteria: (1) enhancement other than BPE and (2) BI-RADS 4/5 calcifications without enhancement. On MRI, BI-RADS 3 and BI-RADS 4/5 lesions were evaluated as benign and malignant, respectively. The diagnostic performances of CEDM and MRI were compared separately between women with minimal-mild BPE and those with moderate-marked BPE.
Results
Sixty-nine patients comprising 43 postmenopausal and 26 premenopausal women were included in the present study. In total, 195 lesions (94 malignant and 101 benign) were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of CEDM for the diagnosis of all lesions were 90.8 and 91.5% with minimal-mild BPE and 79.3 and 76.2% with moderate-marked BPE, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 90.0% and 71.0% with minimal-mild BPE and 87.5% and 78.1% with moderate-marked BPE, respectively. The accuracy of CEDM was significantly superior to that of MRI in women with minimal-mild BPE on both CEDM and MRI (p = 0.002). Regarding the negative impact of a correct diagnosis on CEDM, the odds ratio of “moderate-marked BPE” was 0.382.
Conclusion
In patients with minimal-mild BPE, the diagnostic performance of CEDM was superior to that of MRI.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229:261–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291021276.
Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, 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;24:2394–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1.
Mori M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Suzuki S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts. Breast Cancer. 2017;24:104–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0681-8.
Sorin V, Yagil Y, Yosepovich A, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk and dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211:W267–74. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19355.
Bozzini A, Nicosia L, Pruneri G, et al. Clinical performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in pre-surgical evaluation of breast malignant lesions in dense breasts: a single center study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;184:723–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05881-2.
Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2010;21:565–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266:743–51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084.
Fallenberg EM, Schmitzberger FF, Amer H, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI: clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:2752–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4650-6.
Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, et al. Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology. 2017;285:389–400. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161592.
**ang W, Rao H, Zhou L. A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2020;11:1423–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13400.
Ghaderi KF, Phillips J, Perry H, Lotfi P, Mehta TS. Contrast-enhanced mammography: current applications and future directions. Radiographics. 2019;39:1907–20. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019190079.
Richter V, Hatterman V, Preibsch H, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients with MRI contraindications. Acta Radiol. 2018;59:798–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117735561.
Perry H, Phillips J, Dialani V, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography: a systematic guide to interpretation and reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212:222–31. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19265.
Sogani J, Morris EA, Kaplan JB, et al. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;282:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160284.
Zhao S, Zhang X, Zhong H, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: influence of age, breast density, menstruation status, and menstrual cycle timing. Sci Rep. 2020;10:8608. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65526-8.
American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS® Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS® MRI. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62070-5.
Miller BT, Abbott AM, Tuttle TM. The influence of preoperative MRI on breast cancer treatment. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:536–40. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1932-8.
Covington MF, Pizzitola VJ, Lorans R, et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR Am J Roentogenol. 2018;210:292–300. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18749.
Bhimani C, Matta D, Roth RG, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications. Acad Radiol. 2017;24:84–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.019.
Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium dependency. Radiology. 1997;203:137–44. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.1.9122382.
Müller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhaüser K, Stoll P, Dietz K, Claussen CD. Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology. 1997;203:145–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.1.9122383.
Scaranelo AM, Carrillo MC, Fleming R, et al. Pilot study of quantitative analysis of background enhancement on breast MR images: association with menstrual cycle and mammographic breast density. Radiology. 2013;267:692–700. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13120121.
Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, et al. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insight Imaging. 2019;10:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by a research grant from FUJIFILM Corporation (Tokyo, Japan). The statistical analysis was conducted by Cimic Co., Ltd. We greatly appreciate all medical staff and clinical research coordinators in this clinical study for their contributions.
Funding
This study was supported by a research grant from FUJIFILM Corporation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
This retrospective study was approved by the Certified Review Board of the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs052180121) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standard.
Informed consent
Written informed consent to participate in the present study after a full explanation by the clinical research coordinator was obtained from all patients.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Yuen, S., Monzawa, S., Gose, A. et al. Impact of background parenchymal enhancement levels on the diagnosis of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in evaluations of breast cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Breast Cancer 29, 677–687 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01345-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01345-1