Advertisement

Contrast Enhanced Mammography in Routine Clinical Practice: Frequency and Malignancy Rates of Enhancing Otherwise Occult Findings

      Highlights

      • Four percent of contrast enhanced mammography examinations contained an enhancing finding seen only on subtraction images, ie, without low energy mammographic or sonographic correlate.
      • Twenty percent of enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images were downgraded to benign after undergoing correlative MR.
      • Twenty six percent of enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images that underwent biopsy were malignant on pathology.
      • Image-guided tissue biopsy should be considered for enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images, using either CEM or MR guidance.

      Abstract

      Background

      In routine clinical practice, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) examinations identify enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images that have no low-energy mammographic or sonographic correlate. The purpose of this study is to report the frequency and malignancy rates of enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images in a tertiary care breast imaging practice.

      Materials and methods

      Consecutive review of CEM exams from December 2015 to May 2020. Chi square tests were used to determine associations between cancer diagnosis and clinical characteristics of enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images, P < .05 indicating a statistically significant difference.

      Results

      Four percent (100/2464) of CEM examinations identified 108 enhancing findings seen only on subtraction images. Twenty of those CEM enhancing findings were directly managed as a multifocal disease. Of those further evaluated with MR, 23% (19/78) with associated MR correlates were treated surgically as presumed multicentric or multifocal disease following multidisciplinary review. The remaining 76% (59/78) of enhancing findings were seen only on subtraction images, these included: 20% (12/59) and downgraded to benign on MR 80% (47/59) with suspicious findings which underwent MR vacuum assisted breast biopsy yielding: 26% (12/47) malignancy, 9% (4/47) high risk, and 66% (31/47) benign diagnoses.

      Conclusion

      Enhancing findings seen on subtraction only CEM images are seen in 4% of cases in clinical practice. MR correlation can help characterize CEM findings to: (1) avoid unnecessary biopsy for benign findings, and (2) guide tissue sampling or empiric surgical planning for suspicious findings.

      Keywords

      Abbreviations:

      CEM (Contrast-Enhanced Mammography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), PPV (Positive Predictive Value), MR-VABB (MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy), NME (non-mass enhancement), CAD (computer assisted device), BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Radiology and Data Systems)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Breast Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ali-Mucheru M
        • Pockaj B
        • Patel B
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced digital mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer.
        Ann Surg Oncol. Dec 2016; 23: 649-655https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7
        • Diekmann F
        • Freyer M
        • Diekmann S
        • et al.
        Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
        Eur J Radiol. Apr 2011; 78: 112-121https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.002
        • Lewin JM
        • Patel BK
        • Tanna A.
        Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review.
        J Breast Imag. 2020; 2: 7-15https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz074
      1. Lewis TC, Pizzitola VJ, Giurescu ME, et al. Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography: A Single-Institution Experience of the First 208 Cases. The breast Journal. Jan 2017;23:67-76. doi:10.1111/tbj.12681.

        • Patel BK
        • Hilal T
        • Covington M
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography is comparable to MRI in the assessment of residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant systemic therapy.
        Ann Surg Oncol. May 2018; 25: 1350-1356https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6413-x
        • Patel B.K.
        • Lobbes M.B.I.
        • Lewin J
        Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review.
        Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI. 2018; 39 (WB Saunders)
        • Taşkın F
        • Soyder A
        • Tanyeri A
        • Öztürk VS
        • Ünsal A.
        Lesion characteristics, histopathologic results, and follow-up of breast lesions after MRI-guided biopsy.
        Diagn Interv Radiol. Sep-Oct 2017; 23: 333-338https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2017.17004
        • Chou CP
        • Lewin JM
        • Chiang CL
        • et al.
        Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis–comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI.
        Eur J Radiol. Dec 2015; 84: 2501-2508https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.09.019
        • 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. Jul 2017; 27: 2752-2764https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4650-6
        • Li L
        • Roth R
        • Germaine P
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions.
        Diagn Interv Imaging. Feb 2017; 98: 113-123https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.013
        • Chen S-T
        • Okamoto S
        • Daniel BL
        • Covelli J
        • DeMartini WB
        • Ikeda DM.
        Pure fibrocystic change diagnosed at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: imaging features and follow-up outcomes.
        J Breast Imag. 2020; 2: 141-146https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz090
        • Lewis TC
        • Patel Bhavika K.
        • Pizzitola Victor J
        Navigating contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
        Appl Radiol. 2017; 46: 21-28
        • Gweon HM
        • Cho N
        • Han W
        • et al.
        Breast MR imaging screening in women with a history of breast conservation therapy.
        Radiology. Aug 2014; 272: 366-373https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131893
      2. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. preliminary observations. Radiology. Mar 1989;170:681-6. doi:10.1148/radiology.170.3.2916021.

        • Kuhl CK
        • Mielcareck P
        • Klaschik S
        • et al.
        Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?.
        Radiology. Apr 1999; 211: 101-110https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101
      3. Freer PE, Niell B, Rafferty EA. Preoperative tomosynthesis-guided needle localization of mammographically and sonographically occult breast lesions. Radiology. May 2015;275:377-83. doi:10.1148/radiol.14140515.

        • Han BK
        • Schnall MD
        • Orel SG
        • Rosen M.
        Outcome of MRI-guided breast biopsy.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. Dec 2008; 191: 1798-1804https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.07.2827
        • Heller SL
        • Elias K
        • Gupta A
        • Greenwood HI
        • Mercado CL
        • Moy L.
        Outcome of high-risk lesions at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum- assisted breast biopsy.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 2014; 202: 237-245https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.13.10600
      4. Lee JM, Ichikawa L, Valencia E, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening breast mr imaging in community practice. Radiology. Oct 2017;285:44-52. doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162033.

        • Lee JM
        • Kaplan JB
        • Murray MP
        • Liberman L.
        Complete excision of the MRI target lesion at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast cancer.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. Oct 2008; 191: 1198-1202https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.07.3736
        • Orel SG
        • Rosen M
        • Mies C
        • Schnall MD.
        MR imaging-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core-needle breast biopsy: initial experience.
        Radiology. Jan 2006; 238: 54-61https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2381050050
      5. Perlet C, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results from a European multicenter study of 538 lesions. Cancer. Mar 1 2006;106:982-90. doi:10.1002/cncr.21720.

        • Rauch GM
        • Dogan BE
        • Smith TB
        • Liu P
        • Yang WT.
        Outcome analysis of 9-gauge MRI-guided vacuum-assisted core needle breast biopsies.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. Feb 2012; 198: 292-299https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.7594
        • Coffey K
        • Sung J
        • Comstock C
        • et al.
        Utility of targeted ultrasound to predict malignancy among lesions detected on contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 217: 595-604https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24368
        • Chevrier MC
        • David J
        • Khoury ME
        • Lalonde L
        • Labelle M
        • Trop I.
        Breast biopsies under magnetic resonance imaging guidance: challenges of an essential but imperfect technique.
        Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. May-Jun 2016; 45: 193-204https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2015.07.002
        • Aracava MM
        • Chojniak R
        • Souza JA
        • Bitencourt AG
        • Marques EF.
        Identification of occult breast lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging with targeted ultrasound: a prospective study.
        Eur J Radiol. Mar 2014; 83: 516-519https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.12.017