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

OBJECTIVES: Contrast-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. METHODS: All 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. RESULTS: CESM 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). CONCLUSION: CESM 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.

Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) examination results in a low-energy (LE) and contrast-enhanced image. The LE appears similar to a full-field digital mammogram (FFDM). Our aim was to evaluate LE CESM image quality by comparing it to FFDM using criteria defined by the European Reference Organization for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF). METHODS: A total of 147 cases with both FFDM and LE images were independently scored by two experienced radiologists using these (20) EUREF criteria. Contrast detail measurements were performed using a dedicated phantom. Differences in image quality scores, average glandular dose, and contrast detail measurements between LE and FFDM were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: No significant differences in image quality scores were observed between LE and FFDM images for 17 out of 20 criteria. LE scored significantly lower on one criterion regarding the sharpness of the pectoral muscle (p < 0.001), and significantly better on two criteria on the visualization of micro-calcifications (p = 0.02 and p = 0.034). Dose and contrast detail measurements did not reveal any physical explanation for these observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. From this perspective FFDM can be omitted in patients with an indication for CESM. KEY POINTS: • Low-energy CESM images are non-inferior to FFDM images. • Micro-calcifications are significantly more visible on LE CESM than on FFDM. • There is no physical explanation for this improved visibility of micro-calcifications. • There is no need for an extra FFDM when CESM is indicated.