Over the course of a decade, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) supplied strong sensitivity in breast most cancers screening and ruling it out for girls deemed to be at intermediate and excessive danger, in accordance with new analysis.
For the retrospective research, just lately printed within the European Journal of Radiology, researchers reviewed screening CEM exams, carried out between 2012 and 2023, for five,424 girls (imply age of 54.8). The authors identified that 4,606 girls (84.9 %) had dense breasts and 1,134 girls (20.9 %) within the cohort had a household historical past of breast most cancers.1
The research authors discovered that CEM supplied an space underneath the curve (AUC) of 92.3 %, a sensitivity price of 95.9 % and a detrimental predictive worth (NPV) of 99.9 %.1
Whereas there have been no suspicious findings on low-energy mammography photos (a and b) for a 52-year-old lady, subtracted distinction photos (c and d) revealed a small enhancing mass that was subsequently recognized as a grade 2 invasive ductal carcinoma. (Photographs courtesy of the European Journal of Radiology.)
“Contemplating breast most cancers’s excessive morbidity and mortality, the trade-off of a better detection price towards a rise in false positives and recall circumstances may be acceptable. Early detection and therapy can forestall superior illness, rising possibilities for profitable therapy and remedy. The potential prognostic advantage of using CEM in screening applications warrants investigation by means of large-scale potential research,” wrote lead research writer Vera Sorin, M.D., who’s affiliated with the Division of Diagnostic Imaging on the Chaim Sheva Medical Heart in Ramat Gan, Israel, and colleagues.
Whereas the researchers famous a lowered specificity price for CEM (81.8 %) in distinction to what has been reported within the literature for full-field digital mammography (96.5 %), they famous a ten % enhance in specificity from preliminary CEM screening (79.2 %) to a 3rd screening spherical (89.2 %).1,2
“This enchancment over subsequent rounds could also be attributed to the novelty of the modality and lack of earlier related research for comparability in the course of the first screening spherical, which might partly clarify the preliminary low specificity and excessive overcall charges,” urged Sorin and colleagues.
Three Key Takeaways
1. Excessive sensitivity and NPV. CEM demonstrated strong sensitivity (95.9 %) and a really excessive detrimental predictive worth (99.9 %) for breast most cancers screening in intermediate- and high-risk girls, making it a dependable screening technique in these teams.
2. Efficient for girls with dense breasts. With a good portion of the research inhabitants having dense breasts, CEM achieved a most cancers detection price (CDR) of 13.1 per 1,000 circumstances, which was greater than that reported for whole-breast ultrasound and 5.2 per 1,000 greater than low-energy mammography.
3. Elevated detection price over time: Specificity for CEM improved throughout screening rounds (from 79.2 % to 89.2 %), presumably attributable to elevated familiarity with the modality and method refinements, suggesting that CEM’s accuracy might enhance with continued use in observe.
The researchers discovered that CEM had a most cancers detection price (CDR) of 13.1 per 1,000 circumstances. Whereas that is decrease than the reported CDR for supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the research authors maintained that CEM’s CDR is greater than that of supplemental whole-breast ultrasound and supplies a viable different to low-energy mammography views in high-risk populations (CDR of seven.9 per 1,000 exams).1,3,4
“In our research, CEM elevated the incremental CDR by 5.2 per 1000 screenings in comparison with normal mammography in girls with dense breasts or an elevated danger for breast most cancers,” added Sorin and colleagues.
(Editor’s be aware: For associated content material, see “Is the Kaiser Rating Extra Efficient than BI-RADS for Assessing Distinction-Enhanced Mammography and MRI?.” “May a Mammography Worklist in Order of Rising Breast Density Bolster Interpretation and Effectivity?” and “Research: Distinction-Enhanced Mammography Provides Considerably Greater Sensitivity for Breast Most cancers in Dense Breasts.”)
Past the inherent limitations of a single-center retrospective research, the authors famous a lack of know-how on high-risk lesions and incomplete info on affected person danger components. Additionally they acknowledged an absence of separate optimistic predictive worth (PPV) evaluation for BI-RADS 4 and BI-RADS 5 circumstances, and no specificity evaluation for low-energy mammography photos.
References
1. Sorin V, Rahman N, Halabi N, Barash Y, Klang E, Sklair-Levy M. Evaluating ten years of breast most cancers screening with contrast-enhanced mammography in girls with intermediate-high danger. Eur J Radiol. 2024 Oct 28. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111807.
2. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy studying in population-based screening program: follow-up advert ultimate outcomes of Oslo II research. Radiology. 2007;244(3):708-717.
3. Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for girls with extraordinarily dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2091-2102.
4. Berg WA, Vourtsis A. Screening breast ultrasound utilizing handheld or automated method in girls with dense breasts. J Breast Imag. 2019;1(4):283-296.
