Rationale and Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to characterize true and false positive findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and correlate enhancement pattern and method of detection with pathology outcomes.
Materials and Methods
This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of diagnostic CEM performed from December 2015 through December 2019 for which biopsy was recommended. Background parenchymal enhancement, tissue density, finding features, pathologic/clinical outcomes, and method of detection were captured. CEM includes low-energy images (LE), similar to standard 2D mammography, and recombined images (RI) that show enhancement. ‘MG-detected’ findings were identified on mammography or LE. ‘RI-detected’ findings were identified due to enhancement on RI. The positive predictive value (PPV2) was calculated on a per-case and a per-finding level. Comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests.
One hundred sixty CEM cases with 220 findings were evaluated with a case PPV2 of 58.1%. 32.3% (71/220) of lesions were RI-detected. The PPV2 of RI-detected enhancement was 40.8% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 22.2%, 32%, and 51.4% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. The PPV2 of MG-detected enhancement was 73.5% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 50%, 54.1%, and 83.8% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. There were 100 false positives findings, 42 of which were RI-detected.
PPV2 of diagnostic CEM is within the range of other diagnostic breast imaging exams. However false positives remain a challenge, especially for RI-detected findings. Additional efforts to improve specificity of RI-detected findings are worthwhile.
Abbreviations:CEM (Contrast-enhanced mammography), IV (intravenous), CC (craniocaudal), MLO (mediolateral oblique), LE (low-energy), HE (high-energy), RI (recombined images), BPE (background parenchymal enhancement), MG (mammography), PPV2 (positive predictive value)
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 Academic Radiology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Mammographic Screening in Older Women: When Is It Time to Stop?.J Breast Imaging. 2020; 2: 92-100
- Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Radiology. 2017; 283: 59-69
Sickles EA, Appleton CM, Burnside ES, Gavenonis SC. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) Atlas- Ultrasound 5th edn. In: American College of Radiology BI-RADS-Atlas. 2013.
- Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2091-2102
- Comparison between an abbreviated and full MRI protocol for detecting additional disease when doing breast cancer staging.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 49: e222-e230
- Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 565-574
- Workflow considerations for incorporation of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography into a breast imaging practice.J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 881-885
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme.Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 1668-1676
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings.Clin Imaging. 2020; 61: 99-105
- Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Large-scale single-center experience.Breast J. 2020; (tbj.13766)
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: comparison with conventional mammography and histopathology in 152 women.Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15: 689-696
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.Eur Radiol. 2017; 27: 2752-2764
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 256-264
- 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: 743-751
- Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: W231-W237
- Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MRI: Impact on Diagnostic Performance.Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198: W373-W380
- Impact of background parenchymal enhancement on diagnostic performance in screening breast MRI.Acad Radiol. 2020; 27: 663-671
- Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up.Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 218-224
- Initial clinical experience with a new MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy device.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28: 900-905
- Lesion characteristics, histopathologic results, and follow-up of breast lesions after MRI-guided biopsy.Diagnostic Interv Radiol. 2017; 23: 333-338
- Outcome analysis of 9-gauge MRI-guided vacuum-assisted core needle breast biopsies.Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198: 292-299
- Outcome of MRI-guided breast biopsy.Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 1798-1804
- MRI-guided breast biopsy: outcomes and effect on patient management.Clin Breast Cancer. 2015; 15: 143-152
- Diagnostic utility of second-look US for breast lesions identified at MR imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis.Radiology. 2014; 273: 401-409
Published online: February 18, 2022
Accepted: January 7, 2022
Received in revised form: January 4, 2022
Received: October 14, 2021
© 2022 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.