Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study

AbstractObjectivesContrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) is a promising problem-solving tool in women referred from a breast cancer screening program. We aimed to study the validity of preliminary results of CESM using a larger panel of radiologists with different levels of CESM experience.MethodsAll women referred from the Dutch breast cancer screening program were eligible for CESM. 199 consecutive cases were viewed by ten radiologists. Four had extensive CESM experience, three had no CESM experience but were experienced breast radiologists, and three were residents. All readers provided a BI-RADS score for the low-energy CESM images first, after which the score could be adjusted when viewing the entire CESM exam. BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign and BI-RADS 4-5 malignant. With this cutoff, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve.ResultsCESM increased diagnostic accuracy in all readers. The performance for all readers using CESM was: sensitivity 96.9 % (+3.9 %), specificity 69.7 % (+33.8 %) and area under the ROC curve 0.833 (+0.188).ConclusionCESM is superior to conventional mammography, with excellent problem-solving capabilities in women referred from the breast cancer screening program. Previous results were confirmed even in a larger panel of readers with varying CESM experience.Key Points• CESM is consistently superior to conventional mammography • CESM increases diagnostic accuracy regardless of a reader’s experience • CESM is an excellent problem-solving tool in recalls from screening programs

[1]  Yun-Chung Cheung,et al.  Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis , 2016, European Radiology.

[2]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[3]  P. Aspelin,et al.  Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines , 2011, European Radiology.

[4]  Edward Hendrick,et al.  Comparison between Breast MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography , 2015, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[5]  C. Balleyguier,et al.  Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI? , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[6]  Xavier Robin,et al.  pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[7]  J. Wildberger,et al.  Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[8]  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.

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

[10]  N. Obuchowski.  Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. , 2003, Radiology.

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

[12]  J. Wildberger,et al.  Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria , 2015, European Radiology.

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

[14]  Joachim E. Wildberger,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme , 2014, European Radiology.

[15]  J. Ryś,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Comparison with Conventional Mammography and Histopathology in 152 Women , 2014, Korean journal of radiology.

[16]  C. Régis,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. , 2014, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[17]  M. Lobbes,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: A Promising New Imaging Tool in Breast Cancer Detection , 2014, Women's health.

[18]  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.

[19]  Janice S Sung,et al.  Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). , 2014, European journal of radiology.

[20]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Methods for calculating sensitivity and specificity of clustered data: a tutorial. , 2012, Radiology.

[21]  Julie Cooke,et al.  CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING ASSESSMENT , 2001 .

[22]  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.

[23]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Individual and Combined Effects of Age, Breast Density, and Hormone Replacement Therapy Use on the Accuracy of Screening Mammography , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine.