Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis

ObjectiveTo assess the utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (DE-CESM) for evaluation of suspicious malignant microcalcifications.MethodsTwo hundred and fifty-six DE-CESMs were reviewed from 2012–2013, 59 cases fulfilled the following criteria and were enrolled for analysis: (1) suspicious malignant microcalcifications (BI-RADS 4) on mammogram, (2) no related mass, (3) with pathological diagnoses. The microcalcification morphology and associated enhancement were reviewed to analyse the accuracy of the diagnosis and cancer size measurements versus the results of pathology.ResultsOf the 59 microcalcifications, 22 were diagnosed as cancers, 19 were atypical lesions and 18 were benign lesions. Twenty (76.9 %) cancers, three (11.55 %) atypia and three (11.55 %) benign lesions revealed enhancement. The true-positive rate of intermediate- and high-concern microcalcifications was significantly higher than that of low-concern lesions (93.75 % vs. 50 %). Overall, the diagnostic sensitivity of enhancement was 90.9 %, with 83.78 % specificity, 76.92 % positive predictive value, 93.94 % negative predictive value and 86.4 % accuracy. Performance was good (AUC = 0.87) according to a ROC curve and cancer size correlation with a mean difference of 0.05 cm on a Bland-Altman plot.ConclusionsDE-CESM provides additional enhancement information for diagnosing breast microcalcifications and measuring cancer sizes with high correlation to surgicohistology.Key Points• DE-CESM provides additional enhancement information for diagnosing suspicious breast microcalcifications.• The enhanced cancer size closely correlates to microscopy by Bland-Altman plot.• DE-CESM could be considered for evaluation of suspicious malignant microcalcifications.

[1]  John M Lewin,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. , 2003, Radiology.

[2]  Nabil Wasif,et al.  MRI versus Ultrasonography and Mammography for Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer , 2009, The American surgeon.

[3]  R. Schulz-Wendtland,et al.  Stereotactic vacuum‐assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients , 2004, Cancer.

[4]  M. Krohn,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size , 2013, European Radiology.

[5]  Chiara Zuiani,et al.  Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  C P Lawinski,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. , 2012, Clinical radiology.

[7]  Serge Muller,et al.  Digital Mammography Using Iodine-Based Contrast Media: Initial Clinical Experience With Dynamic Contrast Medium Enhancement , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[8]  Yun-Chung Cheung,et al.  Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis , 2014, European Radiology.

[9]  Serge Muller,et al.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[11]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[12]  Federica Zanca,et al.  Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. , 2012, Radiology.

[13]  Lonie R. Salkowski,et al.  Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. , 2007, Radiology.

[14]  Serge Muller,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results , 2011, European Radiology.

[15]  B. Grube,et al.  MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population , 2004 .

[16]  Carl J D'Orsi,et al.  The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  S. Orel,et al.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. , 1999, Radiology.

[18]  B. Pockaj,et al.  Use of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Invasive Lobular Cancer: Good, Better, but Maybe not the Best? , 2010, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[19]  Wendie A Berg,et al.  Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  Ritse M. Mann,et al.  MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[21]  S. Obenauer,et al.  Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification , 2005, European Radiology.

[22]  Daniel B Kopans,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  L. Liberman,et al.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Janice S Sung,et al.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. , 2013, Radiology.

[25]  Martin J Yaffe,et al.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. , 2003, Radiology.