Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography Research Articles

Computational evaluation of the bucky components influence on the estimation of normalized glandular dose in digital mammography

The mean glandular dose (MGD) is the most suitable dosimetric quantity used in mammography to describe the absorbed dose by the breast, although it cannot be directly acquired. Studies have provided conversion factors widely implemented in international dosimetry protocols to estimate MGD, such as normalized glandular dose (DgN). Over time, the DgN estimation was refined by considering geometric models that approach a real clinical environment, such as new anode/filter combinations, compression plate and breast models. However, there is no detailed study of how the bucky (support plate, antiscatter grid and detector) can affect the DgN estimation. A modified PENELOPE Monte Carlo code was used for DgN estimation. The irradiation geometric model was built as a complete digital mammography system, considering a homogeneous breast and different typical bucky models in commercial mammography units. Simulations were carried out for mono and polyenergetic beams considering different imaging geometries. Studies with monoenergetic beams showed that the bucky presence affected DgN mainly for higher beam energies and thinner breasts. The breast support plate was the bucky component that most affected the DgN, followed by the antis-scatter grid and finally, the image detector. Studies with polyenergetic conventional (low-energy) spectra showed that the bucky exerted a minimal influence on DgN values (less than 1.0%). For high-energy spectra, mainly employed in modalities such as contrast-enhanced digital mammography, the DgN values were more affected by the bucky, increasing by 4.8% the DgN values for a 2 cm thick breast and a W/Cu 50 kV spectrum. Bucky inclusion in computer simulations is highly recommended mainly for thinner breasts and high-energy spectra. To simplify the simulations, we confirm that a homogeneous carbon fibre block support, with thickness between 3.9 and 4.1 mm, can be used as a good substitute for a complete bucky model.

A comparative study between the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast

BackgroundInvasive lobular carcinoma is the second most prevalent histological subtype of breast cancer after invasive duct carcinoma, with a reported increased incidence in the last two decades. It often presents with challenging imaging characteristics that lower the sensitivity of mammography in their detection and delineation of their extent. Moreover, an increased risk of having synchronous lesions in the same or opposite breast was reported in cases with invasive lobular carcinoma. This obviates the need for other imaging modalities, specifically contrast-enhanced imaging modalities, to improve early detection as well as allow precise determination of the extent of the disease. Our aim in this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the local staging of invasive lobular carcinoma regarding the size, extensions, multiplicity and bilaterality.MethodsThis study included 46 female patients with pathologically proven invasive lobular carcinoma. They underwent full-field digital mammography with a complementary ultrasound examination, contrast-enhanced digital mammography, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. The findings encountered by the three imaging modalities were evaluated independently, and the results were compared with final histopathology.ResultsIn the current study, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI study was the most sensitive modality in the detection of the index lesion, synchronous ipsilateral and contralateral lesions and achieved a sensitivity of 100% in each analysis as compared to contrast-enhanced digital mammography, which achieved a sensitivity of 97.8%, 85.7% and 80%, respectively. Regarding the assessment of the lesion extent to the surroundings, there was a tendency to overestimation by MRI examination.ConclusionsAlthough dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is the most sensitive imaging modality for detecting the index lesion, multiplicity and bilaterality, contrast-enhanced digital mammography achieved comparable overall accuracy. Regarding the locoregional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma, there was a tendency for relative overestimation by MRI examination.

Interval breast cancer: radiological surveillance in screening Egyptian population

BackgroundInterval cancers might be divided into true negative interval cancer where a new lesion is detected that no sign of disease could be detected on previous screening mammogram. For false-negative interval cancers, those missed for overt symptoms and those missed for mild or undetectable ones, this includes interpretive error as benign interval cancer (benign mimics), subtle changes, masked carcinoma or slowly growing or patient factors, such as the dense breast parenchyma. Technical failure interval cancer hampered the reader to discover the abnormality. The aim of this study was to relate the risk factors for the development of the interval breast cancer such as breast density, positive family history of breast cancer in Egyptian population. Highlight the causes of missed breast cancer in order to overcome it in the future radiological interpretation.MethodsA total of 74,546 screening mammographic examinations were performed in the radiology department at specialized breast cancer center in the period between 2015 and 2021 with about 844 pathologically proved malignant cases. Out of the 844 pathologically proven breast cancer cases, 185 breast cancer patients were interval breast cancer having reported normal examination in the previous year, 88 were true interval breast cancer and 97 were missed on mammography and detected later on. The cases were subjected to full-field digital mammogram (FFDM), complementary ultrasound, contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in some cases, and all cases were histopathologically proven by either fine needle aspiration, core needle biopsy (CNB) or open biopsy.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 53.5 years (range 36–83 years). The overall breast cancer detection rate was 11 per 1000 women. The 185 interval cancers were present at a rate of 3.8 per 1000 women. True negative interval breast cancers where 88 cancers were not present in retrospect on screening mammograms, 17 cases present with benign findings (benign mimics mass or calcifications) and 80 cancers were missed cancers. Analysis of the cause of missed carcinoma revealed patient-related, tumor-related, or provider-related factors. Tumor factors were the most commonly encountered, accounting for 49.5% (48 cases), then provider factors in 25.8% (25 cases) while the patient factors were the least commonly encountered in 24.7% (24 cases). Recorded positive family history found in about 35% (31cases) of the true interval breast cancers.ConclusionsAlthough mammography is the standard for detecting early breast cancer, some cancers can be missed due to various causes. Mammographic interpretation must meet high standards to reduce missed cancers. Radiologists should carefully assess screening views and order additional imaging if needed. Palpable lesions and clinical data should be further examined with ultrasound and contrast imaging if necessary. Always compare current images with previous examinations to check for any changes in lesion size. When one pathology is found, search for additional lesions.

Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations for dosimetry in x-ray breast imaging: Part I - Macroscopic scales.

X-ray breast imaging modalities are commonly employed for breast cancer detection, from screening programs to diagnosis. Thus, dosimetry studies are important for quality control and risk estimation since ionizing radiation is used. To perform multiscale dosimetry assessments for different breast imaging modalities and for a variety of breast sizes and compositions. The first part of our study is focused on macroscopic scales (down to millimeters). Nine anthropomorphic breast phantoms with a voxel resolution of 0.5mm were computationally generated using the BreastPhantom software, representing three breast sizes with three distinct values of volume glandular fraction (VGF) for each size. Four breast imaging modalities were studied: digital mammography (DM), contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and dedicated breast computed tomography (BCT). Additionally, the impact of tissue elemental compositions from two databases were compared. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were performed with the MC-GPU code to obtain the 3D glandular dose distribution (GDD) for each case considered with the mean glandular dose (MGD) fixed at 4mGy (to facilitate comparisons). The GDD within the breast is more uniform for CEDM and BCT compared to DM and DBT. For large breasts and high VGF, the ratio between the minimum/maximum glandular dose to MGD is 0.12/4.02 for DM and 0.46/1.77 for BCT; the corresponding results for a small breast and low VGF are 0.35/1.98 (DM) and 0.63/1.42 (BCT). The elemental compositions of skin, adipose and glandular tissue have a considerable impact on the MGD, with variations up to 30% compared to the baseline. The inclusion of tissues other than glandular and adipose within the breast has a minor impact on MGD, with differences below 2%. Variations in the final compressed breast thickness alter the shape of the GDD, with a higher compression resulting in a more uniformGDD. For a constant MGD, the GDD varies with imaging modality and breast compression. Elemental tissue compositions are an important factor for obtaining MGD values, being a source of systematic uncertainties in MC simulations and, consequently, in breastdosimetry.

Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations for dosimetry in x-ray breast imaging: Part II - Microscopic scales.

Although the benefits of breast screening and early diagnosis are known for reducing breast cancer mortality rates, the effects and risks of low radiation doses to the cells in the breast are still ongoing topics ofstudy. To study specific energy distributions ( ) in cytoplasm and nuclei of cells corresponding to glandular tissue for different x-ray breast imagingmodalities. A cubic lattice (500 μm length side) containing 4064 spherical cells was irradiated with photons loaded from phase space files with varying glandular voxel doses ( ). Specific energy distributions were scored for nucleus and cytoplasm compartments using the PENELOPE (v. 2018) + penEasy (v. 2020) Monte Carlo (MC) code. The phase space files, generated in part I of this work, were obtained from MC simulations in a voxelized anthropomorphic phantom corresponding to glandular voxels for different breast imaging modalities, including digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and breast CT (BCT). In general, the average specific energy in nuclei is higher than the respective glandular dose scored in the same region, by up to 10%. The specific energy distributions for nucleus and cytoplasm are directly related to the magnitude of the glandular dose in the voxel ( ), with little dependence on the spatial location. For similar values, for nuclei is different between DM/DBT and CEDM/BCT, indicating that distinct x-ray spectra play significant roles in . In addition, this behavior is also present when the specific energy distribution ( ) is considered taking into account the GDD in thebreast. Microdosimetry studies are complementary to the traditional macroscopic breast dosimetry based on the mean glandular dose (MGD). For the same MGD, the specific energy distribution in glandular tissue varies between breast imaging modalities, indicating that this effect could be considered for studying the risks of exposing the breast to ionizingradiation.

Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: II. Artefacts/uniformity, exposure time and phantom-based dosimetry

Part II of this study describes constancy tests for artefacts and image uniformity, exposure time, and phantom-based dosimetry; these are applied to four mammography systems equipped with contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) capability. Artefacts were tested using a breast phantom that simulated breast shape and thickness change at the breast edge. Image uniformity was assessed using rectangular poly(methyl)methacrylate PMMA plates at phantom thicknesses of 20, 40 and 60 mm, for the low energy (LE), high energy (HE) images and the recombined CEM image. Uniformity of signal and of the signal to noise ratio was quantified. To estimate CEM exposure times, breast simulating blocks were imaged in automatic exposure mode. The resulting x-ray technique factors were then set manually and exposure time for LE and HE images and total CEM acquisition time was measured with a multimeter. Mean glandular dose (MGD) was assessed as a function of simulated breast thickness using three different phantom compositions: (i) glandular and adipose breast tissue simulating blocks combined to give glandularity values that were typical of those in a screening population, as thickness was changed (ii) PMMA sheets combined with polyethylene blocks (iii) PMMA sheets with spacers. Image uniformity was superior for LE compared to HE images. Two systems did not generate recombined images for the uniformity test when the detector was fully covered. Acquisition time for a CEM image pair for a 60 mm thick breast equivalent phantom ranged from 3.4 to 10.3 s. Phantom composition did not have a strong influence on MGD, with differences generally smaller than 10%. MGD for the HE images was lower than for the LE images, by a factor of between 1.3 and 4.0, depending on system and simulated breast thickness. When combined with the iodine signal assessment in part I, these tests provide a comprehensive assessment of CEM system imaging performance.

Investigation of test methods for QC in dual-energy based contrast-enhanced digital mammography systems: I. Iodine signal testing

The technique of dual-energy contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) visualizes iodine uptake in cancerous breast lesions following an intravenous injection of a contrast medium. The CEM image is generated by recombining two images acquired in rapid succession: a low energy image, with a mean energy below the iodine K-edge, and a higher energy image. The first part of this study examines the use of both commercially available and custom made phantoms to investigate iodine imaging under different imaging conditions, with the focus on quality control (QC) testing. Four CEM equipped systems were included in the study, with units from Fujifilm, GE Healthcare, Hologic and Siemens-Healthineers. The CEM parameters assessed in part I were: (1) image signal as a function of iodine concentration, measured in breast tissue simulating backgrounds of varying thickness and adipose/glandular compositions; (2) normal breast texture cancellation in homogeneous and structured backgrounds; (3) visibility of iodinated structures. For all four systems, a linear response to iodine concentration was found but the degree to which this was independent of background composition differed between the systems. Good cancellation of the glandular tissue inserts was found on all the units. Visibility scores of iodinated targets were similar between the four systems. Specialized phantoms are needed to fully evaluate important CEM performance markers, such as system response to iodine concentration and the ability of the system to cancel background texture. An extensive evaluation of the iodine signal imaging performance is recommended at the Commissioning stage for a new CEM device.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in the Evaluation of Sonomammographic BI-RADS 3 &4 Breast Lesions

Background Breast cancer is a major health problem and a leading cause of death. Early detection of breast cancer aims to reduce morbidity and mortality rates. Mammography has been established as the imaging modality for screening and early detection of breast cancer; however, it has low sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts. Nowadays, MRI of the breast is used as a problem-solving tool. Aim of the Work To assess and compare the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of BI-RADS 3 and BIRADS 4 lesions detected in conventional imaging modalities (Mammography and US). Patients and Methods The study was conducted at Ain Shams University & National Cancer Institute (N.C.I). Thirty patients with no age predilection were enrolled in this study. The patients who presented with BI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions diagnosed by mammography and sonomammography were assessed by both contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and dynamic contrast MRI (DC-MRI) mammography with the maximum dimensions of the lesion or lesions measured in both studies and correlation with histopathology was conducted. Results We found that the area under the curve of DC-MRI was of the highest value (AUC: 88.3%) followed by that of CEDM (AUC: 82.5%). Both were significantly superior to the area under the curve of sonomammography (AUC: 72.9%) and mammography (AUC: 67.1%). Conclusion CEDM and DC-MRI have higher diagnostic accuracy for the detection of intermediate breast lesions compared with mammography alone and with mammography interpreted in association with sonography. CEDM showed slightly lower sensitivity and accuracy compared to DC-MRI. However because of being relatively easier, available, cheap, and acceptable by women, CEDM be used as a problem-solving tool in the characterization of indeterminate breast lesions.

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Conventional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts.

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) versus digital mammography (DM) combined with breast ultrasound (BUS) in women with dense breasts. Between March 2021 and February 2022, patients eligible for CEM with the breast composition category ACR BI-RADS c-d at DM and an abnormal finding (BI-RADS 3-4-5) at DM and/or BUS were considered. During CEM, a nonionic iodinated contrast agent (Iohexol 350 mg I/mL, 1.5 mL/kg) was power-injected intravenously. Images were evaluated independently by two breast radiologists. Findings classified as BI-RADS 1-3 were considered benign, while BI-RADS 4-5 were considered malignant. In case of discrepancies, the higher category was considered for DM+BUS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated, using histology/≥12-month follow-up as gold standards. In total, 51 patients with 65 breast lesions were included. 59 (90.7%) abnormal findings were detected at DM+BUS, and 65 (100%) at CEM. The inter-reader agreement was excellent (Cohen's k = 0.87 for DM+BUS and 0.97 for CEM). CEM showed a 93.5% sensitivity (vs. 90.3% for DM+BUS), a 79.4-82.4% specificity (vs. 32.4-35.5% for DM+BUS) (McNemar p = 0.006), a 80.6-82.9% PPV (vs. 54.9-56.0% for DM+BUS), a 93.1-93.3% NPV (vs. 78.6-80.0% for DM+BUS), and a 86.1-87.7% accuracy (vs. 60.0-61.5% for DM+BUS). The AUC was higher for CEM than for DM+BUS (0.865 vs. 0.613 for Reader 1, and 0.880 vs. 0.628, for Reader 2) (p < 0.001). In conclusion, CEM had a better diagnostic performance than DM and BUS alone and combined together in patients with dense breasts.

The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Compared to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Analysis of Mammographically Detected Suspicious Breast Lesions

Cilj: Princip oslikavanja na kontrastnoj digitalnoj mamografiji (CEDM) temelji se na istom principu kao kod magnetske rezonancije (MR), tj. u prikazu neovaskularizacije. Cilj našega rada je usporedba osjetljivosti CEDM-a u detekciji malignih lezija u dojci s MR-om te određivanje osjetljivosti i specifičnosti navedenih metoda. Ispitanici i metode: Uključeno je 56 ispitanika (55 žena i jedan muškarac; medijan dobi 63,51 godina; raspon 40 – 88 godina) kod kojih je temeljem nalaza na digitalnoj mamografiji postavljena sumnja na maligni proces u dojci. Kod svih ispitanika učinjen je ultrazvuk dojki, MR i CEDM te biopsija suspektne lezije. Indikacija za CEDM je nejasna ili suspektna sjena, distorzija, asimetrija ili nakupina patoloških mikrokalcifikata na digitalnoj mamografiji. Rezultati: Kod 13 (23,21 %) ispitanika došlo je do kontrastne imbibicije lezija na CEDM-u i MR-u. Od ukupnog broja ispitanika, kod njih 15 (26,78 %) dijagnosticirana je maligna lezija, a u 17,85 % došlo je do kontrastne imbibicije samo na CEDM procedure, od kojih je 7 lezija bilo maligno (invazivni karcinom te duktalni karcinom in situ s invazivnom komponentom). Specifičnost i osjetljivost MR-a iznosi 97,1 %, i 85,7 % (ROC-AUC = 0,914, PPV 92,3 %, NPV 94,3 %). Specifičnost i osjetljivost CEDM-a iznosi 94,1 %, odnosno 100 % (ROC-AUC = 0,971, PPV 91,3 %, NPV 100 %). Zaključak: CEDM je procedura jednakovrijedna MR-u u detekciji suspektnih lezija u dojci te može zamijeniti MR u procjeni proširenosti bolesti kada MR nije dostupan ili je kontraindiciran. CEDM je komplementarna dijagnostička metoda MR-u kada se MR ne može napraviti te pokazuje dobru korelaciju u detekciji malignih lezija u dojci.

A new breast phantom suitable for digital mammography, contrast-enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

Our objective is to report a new breast phantom that provides the objective assessment for three types of clinical mammography, i.e. digital mammography (DM), contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The tissue-equivalent materials are used to represent the corresponding tissue, and the layer-by-layer structure with separate regions is designed for image quality assessment of different mammography modes. For DM imaging, substitutes for microcalcifications and fibroglandular tissue of different sizes are used to simulate the conventional breast. For CEDM imaging, the tumor module that can be injected with imaging contrast agents is adopted to distinguish normal tissue and diseased tissue in the dense breast. For DBT imaging, the overlapping breast mass module with multiple layers is designed to perform the layer-by-layer imaging of overlapping tissue. In addition, the quantitative assessment module of image quality is designed based on contrast-to-noise ratio, modulation transfer function and artifact spread function. This phantom allows image quality to be evaluated objectively for three different types of the clinical mammography, while it provides an effective tool for optimizing the dose-image quality relationship of patients.

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Versus Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Detecting Residual Disease After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Purpose: Preoperative evaluation of breast cancer using contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has gained acceptance as a possible alternative to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI). We aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of CEDM and CEMRI for chemotherapeutic response in breast cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).Methods: Fifty patients with invasive carcinoma who underwent both CEDM and CEMRI from November 2017 to October 2018 were included. The residual malignancy sizes after NAC were compared with the histopathological results. The diagnostic performance for detecting residual cancers was compared using Lin concordance and Pearson correlation coefficients.Results: Fifty patients were included in this analysis. The mean tumor size after NAC was 1.22 cm (range: 0–7.0) for CEDM and 1.13 cm (range: 0–5.1) for CEMRI compared with 1.89 cm (range: 0–12.0) at the final pathology measurement. The sensitivity for identifying residual lesions for CEDM and CEMRI were 62.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.6–81.2) and 66.7% (95% CI: 44.7–84.4), respectively. The positive predictive values for residual lesions were 93.8% (95% CI: 69.8– 99.8) for CEDM and 88.9% (95% CI: 65.3–98.6) for CEMRI. The mean difference in CEDM was 0.668 cm, with a concordance coefficient of 0.202 and Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.231 (&lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt;=0.220).Conclusion: The diagnostic value of CEDM for detecting the residual tumor extent after NAC was comparable to that of CEMRI.

Impact of age and breast thickness on mean glandular dose of standard digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis

This study compares the mean glandular dose (MGD) across 2D, 3D projection and Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) mammographic techniques. The important metadata were extracted from the digital mammography console. 650 subjects were clustered based on projections, age and CBT. The MGD of 2D, 3D, and CEDM was positively correlated with CBT but inversely correlated with the age factor. This study indicate MGD of CEDM was 16% and 22% lower compared to 2D and 3D techniques, respectively.

Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in The Discrimination between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions

Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Versus Digital Mammography in The Discrimination between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions

Can Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Change The Final BI-RADS Category of Equivocal Breast Lesions Characterized by Sonomammography in Women with Dense Breast?

Can Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography Change The Final BI-RADS Category of Equivocal Breast Lesions Characterized by Sonomammography in Women with Dense Breast?

Comparison of False-Positive Versus True-Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography.

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to outperform standard mammography while performing comparably to contrast-enhanced MRI. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare imaging characteristics of false-positive and true-positive findings on CEDM. METHODS. This retrospective study included women who underwent baseline screening CEDM between January 2013 and December 2018 assessed as BI-RADS category 0, 3, 4, or 5 and who underwent biopsy with histopathologic diagnosis or had a 2-year imaging follow-up. Lesion characteristics were extracted from CEDM reports. A true-positive finding was defined as a lesion in which biopsy yielded malignancy. A false-positive finding was defined as a lesion in which biopsy yielded benign or benign high-risk pathology or in which 2-year imaging follow-up was negative. RESULTS. Of 157 patients (median age, 52 years), 24 had a total of 26 true-positive lesions, and 133 had a total of 147 false-positive lesions. Of the 26 true-positive lesions, one (4%) exhibited only a mammographic finding on low-iodine images, 13 (50%) exhibited only a contrast finding on iodine images, and 12 (46%) exhibited both a mammographic finding on low-energy images and a contrast finding on iodine images. A true-positive result was more likely (p = .02) for lesions present on both low-energy images and iodine images (31%) than on low-energy images only (4%) or iodine images only (12%). Among lesions present on both low-energy and iodine images, a true-positive result was more likely (p < .001) when the type of mammographic finding was an asymmetry (46%) or calcification (80%) than a mass (11%) or distortion (0%). A true-positive result was more likely (p = .01) among those with, versus those without, an ultrasound correlate (36% vs 9%) and also was more likely (p = .02) among those with, versus those without, an MRI correlate (18% vs 2%). Of 25 false-positive calcifications, 24 had no associated mammographic enhancement; of five true-positive calcifications, four had mammographic enhancement. CONCLUSION. A low-energy mammographic finding with associated enhancement or a finding with a sonographic or MRI correlate predicts a true-positive result. Calcifications with associated enhancement had a high malignancy rate. Nonetheless, half of true-positive lesions enhanced on iodine images without a mammographic finding on low-energy images. CLINICAL IMPACT. These observations inform radiologists' management of abnormalities detected on screening CEDM.

Editorial Comment: Highlighting the Utility of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography as a Problem-Solving Tool.

Editorial Comment: Highlighting the Utility of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography as a Problem-Solving Tool.

Impact of background parenchymal enhancement levels on the diagnosis of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in evaluations of breast cancer: comparison with contrast-enhanced breast MRI.

To compare the diagnostic performances of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and breast MRI in evaluations of breast cancer, with a focus on the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) levels. The present study included women who underwent CEDM and breast MRI to evaluate the disease extent of breast cancer between January 2018 and December 2019. Readers judged BPE levels (minimal-mild or moderate-marked) on CEDM, and were asked to assign findings suggesting malignancy using the following criteria: (1) enhancement other than BPE and (2) BI-RADS 4/5 calcifications without enhancement. On MRI, BI-RADS 3 and BI-RADS 4/5 lesions were evaluated as benign and malignant, respectively. The diagnostic performances of CEDM and MRI were compared separately between women with minimal-mild BPE and those with moderate-marked BPE. Sixty-nine patients comprising 43 postmenopausal and 26 premenopausal women were included in the present study. In total, 195 lesions (94 malignant and 101 benign) were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of CEDM for the diagnosis of all lesions were 90.8 and 91.5% with minimal-mild BPE and 79.3 and 76.2% with moderate-marked BPE, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 90.0% and 71.0% with minimal-mild BPE and 87.5% and 78.1% with moderate-marked BPE, respectively. The accuracy of CEDM was significantly superior to that of MRI in women with minimal-mild BPE on both CEDM and MRI (p = 0.002). Regarding the negative impact of a correct diagnosis on CEDM, the odds ratio of "moderate-marked BPE" was 0.382. In patients with minimal-mild BPE, the diagnostic performance of CEDM was superior to that of MRI.

Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT)

The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the radiation dose received during CEDM, short and long protocol (CEDM SP and CEDM LP), with dose received during DM and DBT on patients with varying breast thickness, age and density. Between January 2019 and December 2019, patients having 6214 DM, 3662 DBT and 173 CEDM examinations in our department were analyzed. Protocol total single breast AGD has been evaluated for all clinical imaging protocols, extracting AGD values and exposure data from the dose DICOM Structured Report (SR) information stored in the hospital PACS system. Protocol AGD was calculated as the sum of single projection AGDs carried out in every exam for each clinical protocol. A total amount of 23,383 exams for each breast were analyzed. Protocol AGDs, stratified as a function of patient breast compression thickness, age, and breast density were assessed. The total protocol AGD median values for each protocol are: 2.8 mGy for DM, 3.2 mGy for DBT, 6.0 mGy for DM+DBT, 4.5 mGy for CEDM SP, 7.4 mGy for CEDM SP_DBT (CEDM SP protocol with DBT), 8.4 mGy for CEDM LP and 11.6 mGy for CEDM LP_DBT (CEDM LP protocol with DBT). CEDM SP AGD median value is 59% higher than DM AGD median value and 40% lesser than DM+DBT AGD median; this last difference was statistically confirmed with a p-value <0.001. AGD value for each standard breast CEDM SP projection results to be below 3-mGy limit. AGD value for each standard breast CEDM SP projection results to be below 3 mGy, as required by international legislation. For dense breasts, the AGD median value is 4.2 mGy, with the first and third quartile of 3.3 mGy and 6.0 mGy respectively; for non-dense breasts, the AGD median value is 4.7 mGy, with first and third quartile of 3.5 mGy and 6.3 mGy respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically tested and confirmed, with a p-value of 0.039. CEDM SP results in higher radiation exposure compared with conventional DM and DBT but lower than the Combo mode. The dose administered during the CEDM SP is lower in patients with dense breasts regardless of their size. An interesting outcome, considering the ongoing studies on CEDM screening in patients with dense breasts.

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging: reproducibility compared to pathologic anatomy

To compare the reproducibility between contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the postsurgical pathologic examination. In addition, the applicability of the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of MRI to CEDM was evaluated for mass lesions. A total of 62 patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this study, for a total of 67 lesions. Fifty-nine patients underwent both methods. The reproducibility between MRI vs CEDM and the reference standard (postoperative pathology) was assessed by considering the lesion and breast size as pivotal variables. Reproducibility was evaluated by computing the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Bland-Altman plots were used to depict the observed pattern of agreement as well as to estimate the associated bias. Furthermore, the pattern of agreement between the investigated methods with regard to the breast lesion characterization (i.e. mass/nonmass; shape; margins; internal enhanced characteristics) was assessed by computing the Cohen kappa and its 95% confidence interval (CI). The reproducibility between MRI and the reference standard and between CEDM and the reference standard showed substantial agreement, with a CCC value of 0.956 (95% CI, 0.931-0.972) and 0.950 (95% CI, 0.920-0.969), respectively. By looking at the Bland-Altman analysis, bias values of 2.344 and 1.875 mm were observed for MRI and CEDM vs reference evaluation, respectively. The agreement between MRI and CEDM is substantial with a CCC value of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.949-0.981). The Bland-Altman analysis showed bias values of -0.469 mm when comparing CEDM vs MRI. Following the Landis and Koch classification criteria, moderate agreement was observed between the two methods in describing BI-RADS descriptors of mass lesions. CEDM is able to measure and describe tumor masses comparably to MRI and can be used for surgical planning.