Quantitative Analysis of Contrast-enhanced Mammography for Risk Stratification of Benign Versus Malignant Disease and Molecular Subtype.

OBJECTIVE: To assess quantitative enhancement of benign, high-risk, and malignant lesions and differences in molecular subtype and grade of malignant lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). METHODS: This IRB-approved retrospective study included women who underwent CEM for diagnostic work-up of a breast lesion between 2014 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were women who had diagnostic work-up with CEM and had BI-RADS 1 or 2 with one year follow-up, BI-RADS 3 with tissue diagnosis or stability for 2 years, or BI-RADS 4 or 5 with tissue diagnosis. An enhancement ratio was calculated for all lesions. This was obtained by drawing a region of interest within the lesion and a second region of interest in the nonenhancing background tissue using a program developed with MATLAB. Descriptive statistics were evaluated using chi-squared tests, Fisher exact tests, and analysis of variance. A logistic regression model was used to predict cancer outcome using the enhancement ratio. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 332 lesions in 210 women that met study criteria. Of the 332 lesions, 50.9% (169/332) were malignant, 5.7% (19/332) were high-risk, and 43.4% (144/332) were benign. Enhancement intensity of malignant lesions was higher than benign lesions. Odds ratio for quantitative enhancement of malignant lesions was 30.15 (P < 0.0001). Enhancement ratio above 1.49 had an 84.0% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity for malignancy. HER2-enriched breast cancers had significantly higher mean enhancement ratios (P = 0.0062). CONCLUSION: Quantitative enhancement on CEM demonstrated that malignant breast lesions had higher mean enhancement intensity than benign lesions.

Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease.

Purpose To compare the diagnostic performances of contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the detection of index and secondary cancers in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer by using histologic or imaging follow-up as the standard of reference. Materials and Methods This institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 52 women who underwent breast MR imaging and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for newly diagnosed unilateral breast cancer between March 2014 and October 2015. Of those 52 patients, 46 were referred for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and targeted ultrasonography because they had additional suspicious lesions at MR imaging. In six of the 52 patients, breast cancer had been diagnosed at an outside institution. These patients were referred for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and targeted US as part of diagnostic imaging. Images from contrast-enhanced spectral mammography were analyzed by two fellowship-trained breast imagers with 2.5 years of experience with contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value were calculated for both imaging modalities and compared by using the Bennett statistic. Results Fifty-two women with 120 breast lesions were included for analysis (mean age, 50 years; range, 29-73 years). Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography had similar sensitivity to MR imaging (94% [66 of 70 lesions] vs 99% [69 of 70 lesions]), a significantly higher PPV than MR imaging (93% [66 of 71 lesions] vs 60% [69 of 115 lesions]), and fewer false-positive findings than MR imaging (five vs 45) (P < .001 for all results). In addition, contrast-enhanced spectral mammography depicted 11 of the 11 secondary cancers (100%) and MR imaging depicted 10 (91%). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography is potentially as sensitive as MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease in newly diagnosed breast cancer, with a higher PPV. © RSNA, 2017.

Diabetic Mastopathy: Adjunctive Use of Ultrasound and Utility of Core Biopsy in Diagnosis.

Diabetic mastopathy is uncommon but occurs in long-term insulin-dependent diabetic patients who develop hard palpable breast masses which mimic breast cancer and are occult mammographically. Ultrasound evaluation is useful to analyze the masses. There is a spectrum of ultrasound findings from marked acoustic shadowing to a vague hypoechoic area without shadowing. Ultrasound-guided core biopsy (CB) is recommended for a definitive diagnosis since fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) yields insufficient material for diagnosis secondary to extensive fibrosis. Four of the 11 patients in our series had FNAB, which was reported as insufficient material for diagnosis. However, 10 of 11 patients with diabetic mastopathy were successfully diagnosed by ultrasound-guided CB, helping to avoid an unnecessary surgical excisional biopsy.