Multireader comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography versus the combination of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer

• Published in: Radiologia medica Vol. 126; no. 11; pp. 1407 - 1414
• Main Authors: Girometti, Rossano, Linda, Anna, Conte, Paola, Lorenzon, Michele, De Serio, Isabella, Jerman, Katerina, Londero, Viviana, Zuiani, Chiara
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Milan Springer Milan 01-11-2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Breast cancer; Breast Radiology; Diagnostic Radiology; Imaging; Interventional Radiology; Lesions; Mammography; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neuroradiology; Pathology; Radiology; Ultrasound; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Breast cancer; Preoperative staging; Contrast-enhanced digital mammography
• ISSN: 0033-8362; 1826-6983
• DOI: 10.1007/s11547-021-01400-5

Purpose
To compare preoperative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis (DM + DBT) in detecting breast cancer (BC) and assessing its size.
Material and methods
We retrospectively included 78 patients with histological diagnosis of BC who underwent preoperative DM, DBT, and CEM over one year. Four readers, blinded to pathology and clinical information, independently evaluated DM + DBT versus CEM to detect BC and measure its size. Readers' experience ranged 3–10 years. We calculated the per-lesion cancer detection rate (CDR) and the complement of positive predictive value (1-PPV) of both methods, stratifying analysis on the total of lesions, index lesions, and additional lesions. The agreement in assessing cancer size versus pathology was assessed with Bland–Altman analysis.
Results
100 invasive BCs (78 index lesions and 22 additional lesions) were analyzed. Compared to DM + DBT, CEM showed higher overall CDR in less experienced readers (range 0.85–0.90 vs. 0.95–0.96), and higher CDR for additional lesions, regardless of the reader (range 0.54–0.68 vs. 0.77–0.86). CEM increased the detection of additional disease in dense breasts in all readers and non-dense breasts in less experienced readers only. The 1-PPV of CEM (range 0.10–0.18) was comparable to that of DM + DBT (range 0.09–0.19). At Bland–Altman analysis, DM + DBT and CEM showed comparable mean differences and limits of agreement in respect of pathologic cancer size.
Conclusion
Preoperative CEM improved the detection of additional cancer lesions compared to DM + DBT, particularly in dense breasts. CEM and DM + DBT achieved comparable performance in cancer size assessment.