Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging modality that generates low-energy (LE) images that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that show lesion vascularity such as MRI. Supplemental whole-breast US increases cancer detection rates when performed with FFDM but not with MRI. Purpose To compare the performance of CEM, LE images, and LE images supplemented with whole-breast US in breast cancer detection during screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study recruited female participants from December 2014 to February 2019 who were scheduled for screening mammography and whole-breast US. CEM (including LE images and recombined images) and whole-breast US images were interpreted by separate breast radiologists blinded to the findings on images from the other modality. Statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and abnormal interpretation rate were assessed. Biopsy recommendation rate and PPVs of biopsies performed (PPV<sub>3</sub>) were calculated at the lesion level. Results Across 468 participants (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-59 years]; all female participants), nine screen-detected cancers were diagnosed in eight participants: one cancer was depicted at LE imaging alone (cancer detection rate, 2.1 of 1000), four were depicted at LE imaging with whole-breast US (cancer detection rate, 8.5 of 1000), and eight were depicted at CEM (cancer detection rate, 17.1 of 1000; <i>P</i> < .05). The abnormal interpretation rate was 10.3% (48 of 468) for LE images, 13.7% (64 of 468) for LE images with whole-breast US, and 18.6% (87 of 468) for CEM (<i>P</i> < .001). The biopsy recommendation rate was 15.0 of 1000 for LE images, 38.4 of 1000 for LE images with whole-breast US, and 42.7 of 1000 for CEM. Seven biopsies were recommended based on LE images (PPV<sub>3</sub> of one of seven [14.3%]), 18 biopsies based on LE images with whole-breast US (with a PPV<sub>3</sub> of five of 18 [27.8%]), and 20 biopsies based on CEM (PPV<sub>3</sub> of 9 of 20 [45.0%]). Conclusion Breast cancer detection improved with CEM compared with LE images alone or LE images with whole-breast US. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310698 © RSNA, 2025 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Radiology
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.242006
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.07

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection

João V. Horvat, Tali Amir, Maxine S. Jochelson, Noam Nissan et al.
4 citations
Radiology
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
6.07
article

Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and Low-Energy Imaging with or without Supplemental Whole-Breast US in Breast Cancer Detection

João V. Horvat, Tali Amir, Maxine S. Jochelson, Noam Nissan, Christopher Comstock, Gordon P. Watt, Janice S. Sung
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging modality that generates low-energy (LE) images that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that show lesion vascularity such as MRI. Supplemental whole-breast US increases cancer detection rates when performed with FFDM but not with MRI. Purpose To compare the performance of CEM, LE images, and LE images supplemented with whole-breast US in breast cancer detection during screening. Materials and Methods This prospective study recruited female participants from December 2014 to February 2019 who were scheduled for screening mammography and whole-breast US. CEM (including LE images and recombined images) and whole-breast US images were interpreted by separate breast radiologists blinded to the findings on images from the other modality. Statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and abnormal interpretation rate were assessed. Biopsy recommendation rate and PPVs of biopsies performed (PPV<sub>3</sub>) were calculated at the lesion level. Results Across 468 participants (median age, 54 years [IQR, 48-59 years]; all female participants), nine screen-detected cancers were diagnosed in eight participants: one cancer was depicted at LE imaging alone (cancer detection rate, 2.1 of 1000), four were depicted at LE imaging with whole-breast US (cancer detection rate, 8.5 of 1000), and eight were depicted at CEM (cancer detection rate, 17.1 of 1000; <i>P</i> < .05). The abnormal interpretation rate was 10.3% (48 of 468) for LE images, 13.7% (64 of 468) for LE images with whole-breast US, and 18.6% (87 of 468) for CEM (<i>P</i> < .001). The biopsy recommendation rate was 15.0 of 1000 for LE images, 38.4 of 1000 for LE images with whole-breast US, and 42.7 of 1000 for CEM. Seven biopsies were recommended based on LE images (PPV<sub>3</sub> of one of seven [14.3%]), 18 biopsies based on LE images with whole-breast US (with a PPV<sub>3</sub> of five of 18 [27.8%]), and 20 biopsies based on CEM (PPV<sub>3</sub> of 9 of 20 [45.0%]). Conclusion Breast cancer detection improved with CEM compared with LE images alone or LE images with whole-breast US. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02310698 © RSNA, 2025 <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i>

RadiologyVol. 314(3)
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
6.07
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.