Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Breast MRI: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to standard contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (breast MRI). Like breast MRI, CEM enables tumour visualization by contrast accumulation. CEM seems to be a viable substitute for breast MRI. Methods: This systematic search assessed the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques in women with suspicious breast lesions on prior imaging or physical examination, who have undergone both breast MRI and CEM. CEM had to be performed on a commercially available system. The MRI sequence parameters had to be described sufficiently to ensure that standard breast MRI sequence protocols were used. Pooled values of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), were estimated using bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for CEM and breast MRI were also constructed. Results: Six studies (607 patients with 775 lesions) met the predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 96% for CEM and 97% for breast MRI. Pooled specificity was 77% for both modalities. DOR was 79.5 for CEM and 122.9 for breast MRI. Between-study heterogeneity expressed as the I2 -index was substantial with values over 80%. Conclusion: Pooled sensitivity was high for both CEM and breast MRI, with moderate specificity. The pooled DOR estimates, however, indicate higher overall diagnostic performance of breast MRI compared to CEM. Nonetheless, current scientific evidence is too limited to prematurely discard CEM as an alternative for breast MRI.

Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a combination of standard mammography and iodinated contrast material administration. During the last decade, CEM has found its place in breast imaging protocols: after i.v. administration of iodinated contrast material, low-energy and high-energy images are retrieved in one acquisition using a dual-energy technique, and a recombined image is constructed enabling visualisation of areas of contrast uptake. The increased incorporation of CEM into everyday clinical practice is reflected in the installation of dedicated equipment worldwide, the (commercial) availability of systems from different vendors, the number of CEM examinations performed, and the number of scientific articles published on the subject. It follows that ever more radiologists will be confronted with this technique, and thus be required to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field. Most importantly, radiologists must have sufficient knowledge on how to interpret CEM images and be acquainted with common artefacts and pitfalls. This comprehensive review provides a practical overview of CEM technique, including CEM-guided biopsy; reading, interpretation and structured reporting of CEM images, including the accompanying learning curve, CEM artefacts and interpretation pitfalls; indications for CEM; disadvantages of CEM; and future developments.

The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use.

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor's system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor's systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.

[Are The Netherlands ready for personalized breast cancer screening? Abbreviated breast MRI and contrast-enhanced mammography for screening in women with dense breasts]. / Is Nederland klaar voor gepersonaliseerde borstkankerscreening?

One-size-fits-all breast cancer screening no longer reflects the current state of knowledge and technology. 8% of the participants in the Dutch Breastcancer Screening Program have extremely dense breasts, which is coupled to a strongly increased risk of breast cancer. In addition, for this group of approximately 80,000 women per year, mammography is only 60% sensitive. The DENSE trial showed that supplemental MRI after a negative mammogram reduced the number of interval cancers by more than 80%. The Dutch Health Council however subsequently recommended to consider contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) as a screening tool. At the request of the Ministry of Health-Welfare and Sport, simultaneous research is being set up to study both CEM and the introduction of CEM and "accelerated" (abbreviated) MRI. This article explains the differences between the two techniques and discusses the role both could play in screening this large group of women when politicians give green light.

[Robot-controlled MRI-guided transrectal prostate biopsy, a promising technique]. / Robotgestuurde MRI-geleide transrectale prostaatbiopsie.

At the so-called in-bore, MRI-guided prostate biopsy, the radiologist in the MRI suite manually directs a rectal biopsy needle guide at an abnormality confirmed by a previous prostate MRI. This manual technique of taking a biopsy is time-consuming and thus rather expensive, as the patient has to be moved in and out of the MRI several times. Since 2015, a remote-controlled manipulator robot (RCM) has been available. Using this apparatus the radiologist is able to position the needle guide remotely. This technique is simple to learn and less time-consuming than the in-bore biopsy without the RCM. In this article we discuss the findings from the first 201 patients in the Netherlands from whom robot-guided prostate biopsies have been taken.

Rapid Access to Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammogRaphy in women recalled from breast cancer screening: the RACER trial study design.

BACKGROUND: In the Dutch breast cancer screening program, women recalled with a BI-RADS 0 score are referred for additional imaging, while those with BI-RADS 4/5 scores are also directed to an outpatient breast clinic. Approximately six out of ten women are recalled without being diagnosed with a malignancy. However, these recalls require additional imaging and doctor visits, which result in patient anxiety and increased health care costs. Conventional types of imaging used for additional imaging are full-field digital mammography and tomosynthesis. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography has proved to have higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging in women recalled from screening. Therefore, the aim is to study if CESM instead of conventional imaging is a more accurate, patient-friendly, and cost-effective strategy in the work-up of women recalled from breast cancer screening. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will be conducted at four centers and will include 528 patients recalled for suspicious breast lesions from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. Participants are randomized in two groups: (1) standard care using conventional breast imaging techniques as initial imaging after recall versus (2) work-up primarily based on CESM. Written informed consent will be collected prior to study inclusion. The primary outcome is the diagnostic accuracy for detection of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes are numbers of additional diagnostic exams, days until final diagnosis, health care costs, and experienced patient anxiety. DISCUSSION: Based on previously published retrospective studies, we expect to demonstrate in this prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial, that using CESM as a primary work-up tool in women recalled from breast cancer screening is a more accurate, cost-effective, and patient-friendly strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL6413/NTR6589. Registered on 6 July, 2017.