To compare mammography (MG), contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection and size estimation of histologically proven breast cancers using postoperative histology as the gold standard. After ethical approval, 80 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer underwent MG, CESM, and MRI examinations. CESM was reviewed by an independent experienced radiologist, and the maximum dimension of suspicious lesions was measured. For MG and MRI, routine clinical reports of breast specialists, with judgment based on the BI-RADS lexicon, were used. Results of each imaging technique were correlated to define the index cancer. Fifty-nine cases could be compared to postoperative histology for size estimation. Breast cancer was visible in 66/80 MG, 80/80 CESM, and 77/79 MRI examinations. Average lesion largest dimension was 27.31 mm (SD 22.18) in MG, 31.62 mm (SD 24.41) in CESM, and 27.72 mm (SD 21.51) in MRI versus 32.51 mm (SD 29.03) in postoperative histology. No significant difference was found between lesion size measurement on MRI and CESM compared with histopathology. Our initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI in breast cancer detection than MG and a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment. • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is slowly being introduced into clinical practice.
 • Access to breast MRI is limited by availability and lack of reimbursement.
 • Initial results show a better sensitivity of CESM and MRI than conventional mammography.
 • CESM showed a good correlation with postoperative histology in size assessment.
 • Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography offers promise, seemingly providing information comparable to MRI.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.

Currently, breast cancer affects approximately 12% of women worldwide. While the incidence of breast cancer rises with age, a younger age at diagnosis is linked to increased mortality. We discuss age related factors affecting breast cancer diagnosis, management and treatment, exploring key concepts and identifying critical areas requiring further research. We examine age as a factor in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment relating it to factors such as genetic status, breast cancer subtype, hormone factors and nodal status. We examine the effects of age as seen through the adoption of population wide breast cancer screening programs. Assessing the incidence rates of each breast cancer subtype, in the context of age, we examine the observed correlations. We explore how age affects patient's prognosis, exploring the effects of age on stage and subtype incidence. Finally we discuss the future of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, examining the potential of emerging tests and technologies (such as microRNA) and how novel research findings are being translated into clinically relevant practices.

/pdf/effects-of-age-on-the-detection-and-management-of-breast-3x0o4jc76i.pdf

Effects of Age on the Detection and Management of Breast Cancer

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study. One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology. Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI. This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG. • CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics. • CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance. • CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI. • Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts. • CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation

Objectives
Feasibility studies have shown that contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) increases diagnostic accuracy of mammography. We studied diagnostic accuracy of CESM in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme, who have a lower disease prevalence than previously published papers on CESM.

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme.

Introduction

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) may have similar diagnostic performance to Contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMRI) in the diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. To date, research has focused exclusively on diagnostic performance when comparing these two techniques. Patient experience is also an important factor when comparing and deciding on which of these modalities is preferable. The aim of this study is to compare patient experience of CESM against CEMRI during preoperative breast cancer staging.



Methods

Forty-nine participants who underwent both CESM and CEMRI, as part of a larger trial, completed a Likert questionnaire about their preference for each modality according to the following criteria: comfort of breast compression, comfort of intravenous (IV) contrast injection, anxiety and overall preference. Participants also reported reasons for preferring one modality to the other. Quantitative data were analysed using a Wilcoxon sign-rank test and chi-squared test. Qualitative data are reported descriptively.



Results

A significantly higher overall preference towards CESM was demonstrated (n = 49, P < 0.001), with faster procedure time, greater comfort and lower noise level cited as the commonest reasons. Participants also reported significantly lower rates of anxiety during CESM compared with CEMRI (n = 36, P = 0.009). A significantly higher rate of comfort was reported during CEMRI for measures of breast compression (n = 49, P = 0.001) and the sensation of IV contrast injection (n = 49, P = 0.003).



Conclusion

Our data suggest that overall, patients prefer the experience of CESM to CEMRI, adding support for the role of CESM as a possible alternative to CEMRI for breast cancer staging.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1754-9485.12296

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance

Bilateral dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography was feasible, easily accomplished, and depicted known primary tumors at a rate comparable to that of MR imaging and higher than that of conventional digital mammography.

/pdf/bilateral-contrast-enhanced-dual-energy-digital-mammography-2rthi6hakt.pdf

Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.

Jessica Ferrara

Papers

Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.