Advertisement

Characterization of True and False Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Published:February 18, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.01.006

      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.

      Results

      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.

      Conclusion

      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.

      Key Words

      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
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Butler R
        • Philpotts L.
        Mammographic Screening in Older Women: When Is It Time to Stop?.
        J Breast Imaging. 2020; 2: 92-100
        • Sprague BL
        • Arao RF
        • Miglioretti DL
        • Henderson LM
        • Buist DS
        • Onega T
        • Rauscher GH
        • Lee JM
        • Tosteson AN
        • Kerlikowske K
        • Lehman CD
        Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
        Radiology. 2017; 283: 59-69
      1. 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.

        • Bakker MF
        • de Lange SV
        • Pijnappel RM
        • et al.
        Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 381: 2091-2102
        • Girometti R
        • Nitti A
        • Lorenzon M
        • Greco F
        • Londero V
        • Zuiani C.
        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
        • Dromain C
        • Thibault F
        • Muller S
        • et al.
        Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results.
        Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 565-574
        • Phillips J
        • Steinkeler J
        • Talati K
        • et al.
        Workflow considerations for incorporation of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography into a breast imaging practice.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 881-885
        • Lobbes MBI
        • Lalji U
        • Houwers J
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme.
        Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 1668-1676
        • Sorin V
        • Faermann R
        • Yagil Y
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings.
        Clin Imaging. 2020; 61: 99-105
        • Bicchierai G
        • Tonelli P
        • Piacenti A
        • et al.
        Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: Large-scale single-center experience.
        Breast J. 2020; (tbj.13766)
        • Luczyńska E
        • Heinze-Paluchowska S
        • Dyczek S
        • Blecharz P
        • Rys J
        • Reinfuss M.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: comparison with conventional mammography and histopathology in 152 women.
        Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15: 689-696
        • 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: 2752-2764
        • Fallenberg EM
        • Dromain C
        • Diekmann F
        • et al.
        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
        • 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: 743-751
        • Patel BK
        • Gray RJ
        • Pockaj BA.
        Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: W231-W237
        • DeMartini WB
        • Liu F
        • Peacock S
        • Eby PR
        • Gutierrez RL
        • Lehman CD.
        Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MRI: Impact on Diagnostic Performance.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198: W373-W380
        • Sippo DA
        • Rutledge GM
        • Mercaldo SF
        • et al.
        Impact of background parenchymal enhancement on diagnostic performance in screening breast MRI.
        Acad Radiol. 2020; 27: 663-671
        • Hambly NM
        • Liberman L
        • Dershaw DD
        • Brennan S
        • Morris EA.
        Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 218-224
        • Mahoney MC.
        Initial clinical experience with a new MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy device.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28: 900-905
        • Taskin F
        • Soyder A
        • Tanyeri A
        • Ozturk VS
        • Unsal A.
        Lesion characteristics, histopathologic results, and follow-up of breast lesions after MRI-guided biopsy.
        Diagnostic Interv Radiol. 2017; 23: 333-338
        • Rauch GM
        • Dogan BE
        • Smith TB
        • Liu P
        • Yang WT.
        Outcome analysis of 9-gauge MRI-guided vacuum-assisted core needle breast biopsies.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198: 292-299
        • Han B-K
        • Schnall MD
        • Orel SG
        • Rosen M.
        Outcome of MRI-guided breast biopsy.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 1798-1804
        • Myers KS
        • Kamel IR
        • Macura KJ.
        MRI-guided breast biopsy: outcomes and effect on patient management.
        Clin Breast Cancer. 2015; 15: 143-152
        • Spick C
        • Baltzer PAT.
        Diagnostic utility of second-look US for breast lesions identified at MR imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Radiology. 2014; 273: 401-409