Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.

Background Staging newly diagnosed breast cancer by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI is limited by access, high cost, and false-positive findings. The utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and 99mTc sestamibi-based molecular breast imaging (MBI) in this setting is largely unknown. Purpose To compare extent-of-disease assessments by using MRI, CEM, and MBI versus pathology in women with breast cancer. Materials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant prospective study, women with biopsy-proven breast cancer underwent MRI, CEM, and MBI between October 2014 and April 2018. Eight radiologists independently interpreted each examination result prospectively and were blinded to interpretations of findings with the other modalities. Visibility of index malignancies, lesion size, and additional suspicious lesions (malignant or benign) were compared during pathology review. Accuracy of index lesion sizing and detection of additional lesions in women without neoadjuvant chemotherapy were compared. Results A total of 102 women were enrolled and 99 completed the study protocol (mean age, 51 years ± 11 [standard deviation]; range, 32-77 years). Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed in 71 women (79 index malignancies) without neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in 28 women (31 index malignancies) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 110 index malignancies, MRI, CEM, and MBI depicted 102 (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 97%), 100 (91%; 95% CI: 84%, 96%), and 101 (92%; 95% CI: 85%, 96%) malignancies, respectively. In patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic size of index malignancies was overestimated with all modalities (P = .02). MRI led to overestimation of 24% (17 of 72) of malignancies by more than 1.5 cm compared with 11% (eight of 70) with CEM and 15% (11 of 72) with MBI. MRI depicted more (P = .007) nonindex lesions, with sensitivity similar to that of CEM or MBI, resulting in lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies (13 of 46 [28%; 95% CI: 17%, 44%] for MRI; 14 of 27 [52%; 95% CI: 32%, 71%] for CEM; and 11 of 25 [44%; 95% CI: 24%, 65%] for MBI (overall P = .01). Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, and MRI showed similar detection of all malignancies. MRI depicted more nonindex suspicious benign lesions than did contrast-enhanced mammography or molecular breast imaging, leading to lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies. All three modalities led to overestimation of index tumor size, particularly MRI. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the interpretive performance of synthetically reconstructed two-dimensional images in combination with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus full-field digital mammography (FFDM) plus DBT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten radiologists trained in reading tomosynthesis examinations interpreted retrospectively, under two modes, 114 mammograms. One mode included the directly acquired full-field digital mammograms combined with DBT, and the other included synthetically reconstructed projection images combined with DBT. The reconstructed images do not require additional radiation exposure. The two modes were compared with respect to sensitivity, namely, recommendation to recall a breast with either a pathology-proven cancer (n = 48) or a high-risk lesion (n = 6), and specificity, namely, no recommendation to recall a breast not depicting an abnormality (n = 144) or depicting only benign abnormalities (n = 30). RESULTS: The average sensitivity for FFDM with DBT was 0.826, compared to 0.772 for synthetic FFDM with DBT (difference, 0.054; P = .017 and P = .053 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). The proportions of breasts with no or benign abnormalities recommended to be recalled were virtually the same: 0.298 and 0.297 for the two modalities, respectively (95% confidence intervals for the difference, -0.028 to 0.036 and -0.070 to 0.066 for fixed and random reader effects, respectively). Sixteen additional clusters of microcalcifications ("positive" breasts) were missed by all readers combined when interpreting the mode with synthesized images versus FFDM. CONCLUSIONS: Lower sensitivity with comparable specificity was observed with the tested version of synthetically generated images compared to FFDM, both combined with DBT. Improved synthesized images with experimentally verified acceptable diagnostic quality will be needed to eliminate double exposure during DBT-based screening.