Addition of Contrast-enhanced Mammography to Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Prospective TOCEM Trial Interim Analysis.

Background Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is often inadequate for screening women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). The ongoing prospective Tomosynthesis or Contrast-Enhanced Mammography, or TOCEM, trial includes three annual screenings with both DBT and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Purpose To perform interim assessment of cancer yield, stage, and recall rate when CEM is added to DBT in women with PHBC. Materials and Methods From October 2019 to December 2022, two radiologists interpreted both examinations: Observer 1 reviewed DBT first and then CEM, and observer 2 reviewed CEM first and then DBT. Effects of adding CEM to DBT on incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR), cancer type and node status, recall rate, and other performance characteristics of the primary radiologist decisions were assessed. Results Among the participants (mean age at entry, 63.6 years ± 9.6 [SD]), 1273, 819, and 227 women with PHBC completed year 1, 2, and 3 screening, respectively. For observer 1, year 1 cancer yield was 20 of 1273 (15.7 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and 29 of 1273 (22.8 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 7.1 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 3.2, 13.4]) for DBT plus CEM (P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 cancer yield was four of 1046 (3.8 per 1000 screenings) for DBT and eight of 1046 (7.6 per 1000 screenings; ICDR, 3.8 per 1000 screenings [95% CI: 1.0, 7.6]) for DBT plus CEM (P = .001). Year 1 recall rate for observer 1 was 103 of 1273 (8.1%) for (incidence) DBT alone and 187 of 1273 (14.7%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 84 of 1273, 6.6% [95% CI: 5.3, 8.1]; P < .001). Year 2 plus 3 recall rate was 40 of 1046 (3.8%) for DBT and 92 of 1046 (8.8%) for DBT plus CEM (difference = 52 of 1046, 5.0% [95% CI: 3.7, 6.3]; P < .001). In 18 breasts with cancer detected only at CEM after integration of both observers, 13 (72%) cancers were invasive (median tumor size, 0.6 cm) and eight of nine (88%) with staging were N0. Among 1883 screenings with adequate reference standard, there were three interval cancers (one at the scar, two in axillae). Conclusion CEM added to DBT increased early breast cancer detection each year in women with PHBC, with an accompanying approximately 5.0%-6.6% recall rate increase. Clinical trial registration no. NCT04085510 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Contrast-enhanced Mammography-guided Biopsy: Initial Trial and Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate lesion visibility and radiologist confidence during contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy. METHODS: Women with BI-RADS ≥4A enhancing breast lesions were prospectively recruited for 9-g vacuum-assisted CEM-guided biopsy. Breast density, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), lesion characteristics (enhancement and conspicuity), radiologist confidence (scale 1-5), and acquisition times were collected. Signal intensities in specimens were analyzed. Patient surveys were collected. RESULTS: A cohort of 28 women aged 40-81 years (average 57) had 28 enhancing lesions (7/28, 25% malignant). Breast tissue was scattered (10/28, 36%) or heterogeneously dense (18/28, 64%) with minimal (12/28, 43%), mild (7/28, 25%), or moderate (9/28, 32%) BPE on CEM. Twelve non-mass enhancements, 11 masses, 3 architectural distortions, and 2 calcification groups demonstrated weak (12/28, 43%), moderate (14/28, 50%), or strong (2/28, 7%) enhancement. Specimen radiography demonstrated lesion enhancement in 27/28 (96%). Radiologists reported complete lesion removal on specimen radiography in 8/28 (29%). Average time from contrast injection to specimen radiography was 18 minutes (SD = 5) and, to post-procedure mammogram (PPM), 34 minutes (SD = 10). Contrast-enhanced mammography PPM was performed in 27/28 cases; 13/19 (68%) of incompletely removed lesions on specimen radiography showed residual enhancement; 6/19 (32%) did not. Across all time points, average confidence was 2.2 (SD = 1.2). Signal intensities of enhancing lesions were similar to iodine. Patients had an overall positive assessment. CONCLUSION: Lesion enhancement persisted through PPM and was visible on low energy specimen radiography, with an average "confident" score. Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided breast biopsy is easily implemented clinically. Its availability will encourage adoption of CEM.

Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Performance of Technologist-Performed Screening Breast Ultrasound After Tomosynthesis in Women With Dense Breasts (the DBTUST).

PURPOSE: To assess diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone or combined with technologist-performed handheld screening ultrasound (US) in women with dense breasts. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant multicenter protocol in western Pennsylvania, 6,179 women consented to three rounds of annual screening, interpreted by two radiologist observers, and had appropriate follow-up. Primary analysis was based on first observer results. RESULTS: Mean participant age was 54.8 years (range, 40-75 years). Across 17,552 screens, there were 126 cancer events in 125 women (7.2/1,000; 95% CI, 5.9 to 8.4). In year 1, DBT-alone cancer yield was 5.0/1,000, and of DBT+US, 6.3/1,000, difference 1.3/1,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.1; P = .005). In years 2 + 3, DBT cancer yield was 4.9/1,000, and of DBT+US, 5.9/1,000, difference 1.0/1,000 (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.5; P < .001). False-positive rate increased from 7.0% for DBT in year 1 to 11.5% for DBT+US and from 5.9% for DBT in year 2 + 3 to 9.7% for DBT+US (P < .001 for both). Nine cancers were seen only by double reading DBT and one by double reading US. Ten interval cancers (0.6/1,000 [95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9]) were identified. Despite reduction in specificity, addition of US improved receiver operating characteristic curves, with area under receiver operating characteristic curve increasing from 0.83 for DBT alone to 0.92 for DBT+US in year 1 (P = .01), with smaller improvements in subsequent years. Of 6,179 women, across all 3 years, 172/6,179 (2.8%) unique women had a false-positive biopsy because of DBT as did another 230/6,179 (3.7%) women because of US (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall added cancer detection rate of US screening after DBT was modest at 19/17,552 (1.1/1,000; CI, 0.5- to 1.6) screens but potentially overcomes substantial increases in false-positive recalls and benign biopsies.

Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To preliminarily asses if Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) can accurately reduce biopsy rates for soft tissue BI-RADS 4A or 4B lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologists retrospectively and independently reviewed 60 lesions in 54 consenting patients who underwent CEDM under Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant institutional review board-approved protocols. Readers provided Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System ratings sequentially for digital mammography/digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), then with ultrasound, then with CEDM for each lesion. Area under the curve (AUC), true positive rates and false positive rates, positive predictive values and negative predictive values were calculated. Statistical analysis accounting for correlation between lesion-examinations and between-reader variability was performed using OR/DBM (for SAS v.3.0), generalized linear mixed model for binary data (proc glimmix, SAS v.9.4, SAS Institute, Cary North Carolina), and bootstrap. RESULTS: The cohort included 49 benign, two high-risk and nine cancerous lesions in 54 women aged 34-74 (average 50) years. Reader-averaged AUC for CEDM was significantly higher than DM/DBT alone (0.85 versus 0.66, p < 0.001) or with US (0.85 versus 0.75, p = 0.001). CEDM increased true positive rates from 0.74 under DB/DBT, and 0.89 with US, to 0.90 with CEDM, (p = 0.019 DM/DBT versus CEDM, p = 0.78 DM/DBT + US versus CEDM) and decreased false positive rates from 0.47 using DM/DBT and 0.61 with US to 0.39 with CEDM (p = 0.017 DM/DBT versus CEDM, p = 0.001 DM/DBT+ US versus CEDM). For an expected cancer rate of 10%, CEDM positive predictive values was 20.5% (95% CI: 16%-27%) and negative predictive values 98.3% (95% CI: 96%-100%). CONCLUSION: Addition of CEDM for evaluation of low-moderate suspicion soft tissue breast lesions can substantially reduce biopsy of benign lesions without compromising cancer detection.