Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities — DBT, CEM, MBI, PEM, MRI, AI

  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To discuss how advanced breast imaging modalities can supplement standard breast imaging with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI.

Recent Findings

For the last 40–50 years, the primary breast cancer screening examination has been mammography which has undergone many changes from xeromammography, film-screen analog, to digital mammography techniques. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are the most recent advances to digital mammography. Molecular breast imaging (MBI) and positron emission mammography (PEM) are nuclear medicine breast examinations that utilize mammographic positioning and are useful supplements to standard breast imaging examination.

Summary

Advances in mammographic techniques have improved the sensitivity and specificity of mammography in detecting breast cancer, demonstrating the extent of disease, and evaluating the response to systemic treatments. Understanding how advanced mammographic techniques fit in with other available breast imaging examinations helps ensure optimal evaluation to help guide treatment decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:•• Of major importance

  1. •• Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660. Findings from this study demonstrate the global burden of cancer and illustrate the increasing significance of cancer as a primary cause of death globally.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a global health concern. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1130):20211033. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Niell BL, Freer PE, Weinfurtner RJ, Arleo EK, Drukteinis JS. Screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2017;55(6):1145–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.06.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, Eby PR, Newell MS, Moy L, Destounis S, Leung JWT, Hendrick RE, Smetherman D. Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(9):1280–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3 Pt A):408–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, D’Orsi C, Harvey JA, Hayes MK, Huynh PT, Jokich PM, Lee SJ, Lehman CD, Mankoff DA, Nepute JA, Patel SB, Reynolds HE, Sutherland ML, Haffty BG. ACR Appropriateness Criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(11S):R45–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. MQSA National Statistics. n.d. Available at http:MQSANationalStatistics|FDA. Accessed on 30 Jan 2023.

  9. Khanani S, Hruska C, Lazar A, Hoernig M, Hebecker A, Obuchowski N. Performance of wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in comparison to full field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2023;30(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.03.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sprague BL, Coley RY, Kerlikowske K, Rauscher GH, Henderson LM, Onega T, Lee CI, Herschorn SD, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL. Assessment of radiologist performance in breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e201759. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1759.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(9):942–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Caumo F, Romanucci G, Hunter K, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(2):391–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4756-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, Gur D, Østerås BH, Gullien R, Hofvind S. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):489–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aase HS, Danielsen AS, Hoff SR, Holen ÅS, Haldorsen IS, Hovda T, Hanestad B, Sandvik CK, Hofvind S. Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2021;141:109753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109753.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–43. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pujara AC, Hui J, Wang LC. Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management. Clin Imaging. 2019;54:133–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.01.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sujlana PS, Mahesh M, Vedantham S, Harvey SC, Mullen LA, Woods RW. Digital breast tomosynthesis: image acquisition principles and artifacts. Clin Imaging. 2019;55:188–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.07.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tirada N, Li G, Dreizin D, Robinson L, Khorjekar G, Dromi S, Ernst T. Digital breast tomosynthesis: physics, artifacts, and quality control considerations. Radiographics. 2019;39(2):413–26. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291021276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mammography market shares. n.d. Available at https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5662852/mammography-market-share-size-trends-industry#rela1-5600738. Accessed on 1 Feb 2023.

  21. Sogani J, Mango VL, Keating D, Sung JS, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future. Clin Imaging. 2021;69:269–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sudhir R, Sannapareddy K, Potlapalli A, Krishnamurthy PB, Buddha S, Koppula V. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast. Br J Radiol. 2021;94(1118):20201046. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nucera E, Parrinello G, Gangemi S, Buonomo A, Aruanno A, Lohmeyer FM, Inchingolo R, Rizzi A. Contrast medium hypersensitivity: a large Italian study with long-term follow-up. Biomedicines. 2022;10(4):759. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10040759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2D FFDM and 3D tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):362–72. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamal R, Mansour S, Farouk A, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography in comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: which modality is appropriate for whom? Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2021.

  26. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, Jong RA, Barr RG, Lehrer DE, Pisano ED, Evans WP 3rd, Mahoney MC, Hovanessian Larsen L, Gabrielli GJ, Mendelson EB. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010;254(1):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2541090953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, D’Alessio D, Comstock CE, Lee CH, Pike MC, Ayhan M, Moskowitz CS, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2019;293(1):81–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hogan MP, Amir T, Sevilimedu V, Sung J, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography screening for intermediate-risk women with a history of lobular neoplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(6):1486–91. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23480.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Montrognon F, Clatot F, Berghian A, Douvrin F, Quieffin F, Defta D, Buquet A, Ferret M, Lequesne J, Leheurteur M, Fontanilles M, Georgescu D, Callonnec F. Impact of preoperative staging with contrast-enhanced mammography for localized breast cancer management. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1134):20210765. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bernardi D, Vatteroni G, Acquaviva A, Valentini M, Sabatino V, Bolengo I, Pellegrini M, Fantò C, Trimboli RM. Contrast-enhanced mammography versus MRI in the evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response in patients with breast cancer: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;219(6):884–94. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.22.27756.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shermis RB, Redfern RE, Burns J, Kudrolli H. Molecular breast imaging in breast cancer screening and problem solving. Radiographics. 2017;37(5):1309–606. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):309–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Akers SR, Werner TJ, Rubello D, Alavi A, Cheng G. 18F-FDG uptake and clearance in patients with compromised renal function. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(8):825–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000513.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Covington MF, Parent EE, Dibble EH, Rauch GM, Fowler AM. Advances and future directions in molecular breast imaging. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.261988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Dang LA, Chazard E, Poncelet E, Serb T, Rusu A, Pauwels X, Parsy C, Poclet T, Cauliez H, Engelaere C, Ramette G, Brienne C, Dujardin S, Laurent N. Impact of artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening with mammography. Breast Cancer. 2022;29(6):967–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01375-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. •• Le EPV, Wang Y, Huang Y, Hickman S, Gilbert FJ. Artificial intelligence in breast imaging. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(5):357–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.02.006. Findings from this study demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI), once effectively integrated into imaging practices, has the potential to reduce diagnostic errors, increase radiologists’ accuracy, and aid in decision-making.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ahmed Elhatw, Hannah L. Chung, and Rasha M. Kamal contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Ahmed Elhatw

  2. Division of Diagnostic Imaging, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Box 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Hannah L. Chung, Charles De Jesus, Hanna R. Ferreira Dalla Pria, Miral M. Patel, Mary S. Guirguis & Tanya W. Moseley

  3. Kasr El Aini Cairo University Hospitals - Baheya Breast Cancer Hospital, Cairo, Egypt

    Rasha M. Kamal

  4. Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ, USA

    Shanen Jean & Varnita Vishwanath

Authors
  1. Ahmed Elhatw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah L. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rasha M. Kamal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles De Jesus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shanen Jean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Varnita Vishwanath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hanna R. Ferreira Dalla Pria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Miral M. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mary S. Guirguis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tanya W. Moseley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of this review. All authors gave final approval of the version of the review to be published, and all authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanya W. Moseley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Drs. Chung, De Jesus, Elhatw, Ferreira Dalla Pria, Guirguis, and Patel, Ms. Jean, and Ms. Vishwanath declare that they have no conflict of interest. Dr. Moseley is a medical imaging consultant for Merit Medical, Hologic, and Siemens Medical.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Elhatw, A., Chung, H.L., Kamal, R.M. et al. Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities — DBT, CEM, MBI, PEM, MRI, AI. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 15, 108–113 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00483-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00483-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation