European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 2752–2764 | Cite as

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation

  • Eva M. Fallenberg
  • Florian F. Schmitzberger
  • Heba Amer
  • Barbara Ingold-Heppner
  • Corinne Balleyguier
  • Felix Diekmann
  • Florian Engelken
  • Ritse M. Mann
  • Diane M. Renz
  • Ulrich Bick
  • Bernd Hamm
  • Clarisse Dromain
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) to digital mammography (MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a prospective two-centre, multi-reader study.

Methods

One hundred seventy-eight women (mean age 53 years) with invasive breast cancer and/or DCIS were included after ethics board approval. MG, CESM and CESM + MG were evaluated by three blinded radiologists based on amended ACR BI-RADS criteria. MRI was assessed by another group of three readers. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were compared. Size measurements for the 70 lesions detected by all readers in each modality were correlated with pathology.

Results

Reading results for 604 lesions were available (273 malignant, 4 high-risk, 327 benign). The area under the ROC curve was significantly larger for CESM alone (0.84) and CESM + MG (0.83) compared to MG (0.76) (largest advantage in dense breasts) while it was not significantly different from MRI (0.85). Pearson correlation coefficients for size comparison were 0.61 for MG, 0.69 for CESM, 0.70 for CESM + MG and 0.79 for MRI.

Conclusions

This study showed that CESM, alone and in combination with MG, is as accurate as MRI but is superior to MG for lesion detection. Patients with dense breasts benefitted most from CESM with the smallest additional dose compared to MG.

Key Points

CESM has comparable diagnostic performance (ROC-AUC) to MRI for breast cancer diagnostics.

CESM in combination with MG does not improve diagnostic performance.

CESM has lower sensitivity but higher specificity than MRI.

Sensitivity differences are more pronounced in dense and not significant in non-dense breasts.

CESM and MRI are significantly superior to MG, particularly in dense breasts.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms Mammography Contrast media Magnetic resonance imaging Breast cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Helena Wiebe, Jana Förster, Michaela Krohn, MD, Jasmin-Maya Singh, MD, Nikola Bangemann, MD, Angela Reles, MD, Christiane Richter-Ehrenstein, MD, and Klaus-Jürgen Winzer, MD, for their contributions to patient recruitment and inclusion. We thank Luc Katz, MSc, Marc Dewey, PhD, and Lauren Mamer, MS, for reviewing the manuscript, Serge Muller, PhD, for scientific assistance and David Caumartin, MSc, for supporting the setup of this study.

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Ulrich Bick. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: GE Healthcare, Guerbet Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare; one author is a stockholder in all of the medical companies.

This study has received funding by a research grant from GE Healthcare and partly by a research grant from Guerbet, Roissy CdG, Cedex, France. The investigators had exclusive control of all data, manuscript drafting and submission of this study. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in the initial results of a single-site, single-reader clinical report evaluation of parts of this patient population (80 patients) have been previously published. Only the primary (index) lesion of each case was assessed [12].

A second publication analysed the clinical performance and size estimation of MG, CESM and the combination of MG and CESM with three readers in 107 index cancers only [10]. Both were single-centre studies. Both studies could only focus on sensitivity as benign lesions were not included. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, multicentre study.

References

  1. 1.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Emaus MJ, Bakker MF, Peeters PH et al (2015) MR Imaging as an additional screening modality for the detection of breast cancer in women aged 50-75 years with extremely dense breasts: the DENSE trial study design. Radiology 0:141827Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB et al (2008) Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs. mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151–2163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steger-Hartmann T, Hofmeister R, Ernst R, Pietsch H, Sieber MA, Walter J (2010) A review of preclinical safety data for magnevist (gadopentetate dimeglumine) in the context of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Investig Radiol 45:520–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jost G, Lenhard DC, Sieber MA, Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Pietsch H (2016) Signal increase on inenhanced T1-weighted images in the rat brain after repeated, extended doses of gadolinium-based contrast agents: comparison of linear and macrocyclic agents. Investig Radiol 51:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robert P, Violas X, Grand S et al (2016) Linear gadolinium-based contrast agents are associated with brain gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Investig Radiol 51:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229:261–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat 146:371–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knogler T, Homolka P, Hornig M et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4007-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 24:256–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266:743–751CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agency IAE (2002) International action plan for the radiological protection of patients. GOV/2002/36-GC(46)/12 GOV/2002/36-GC(46)/12:1-9Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Committee A (2014) ACR practice guideline for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radiology ACo (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). VA: American College of Radiology 4 editionGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lobbes MB, Smidt ML, Houwers J, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Wildberger JE (2013) Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clin Radiol 68:935–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Team RC (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dan Carr pbNL-K, Martin Maechler and contains copies of lattice function written by Deepayan, Sarkar (2014) hexbin: Hexagonal Binning Routines. R package version 1.27.0Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A et al (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12:77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F et al (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 14:R94CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21:565–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol 24:1668–1676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cheung YC, Tsai HP, Lo YF, Ueng SH, Huang PC, Chen SC (2016) Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis. Eur Radiol 26:1082–1089CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sardanelli F, Bacigalupo L, Carbonaro L et al (2008) What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard? Radiol Med 113:439–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chou CP, Lewin JM, Chiang CL et al (2015) Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis-Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Eur J Radiol. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.09.019 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luczynska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E et al (2015) Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit 21:1358–1367CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Behm EC, Beckmann KR, Dahlstrom JE et al (2013) Surgical margins and risk of locoregional recurrence in invasive breast cancer: an analysis of 10-year data from the Breast Cancer Treatment Quality Assurance Project. Breast 22:839–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G et al (2003) Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 97:926–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schaefer FK, Eden I, Schaefer PJ et al (2007) Factors associated with one step surgery in case of non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 64:426–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Braun M, Polcher M, Schrading S et al (2008) Influence of preoperative MRI on the surgical management of patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:179–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McGhan LJ, Wasif N, Gray RJ et al (2010) Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular cancer: good, better, but maybe not the best? Ann Surg Oncol 17:255–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE (2009) MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg 75:970–975PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mann RM, Hoogeveen YL, Blickman JG, Boetes C (2008) MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lobbes MB, Lalji UC, Nelemans PJ et al (2015) The quality of tumor size assessment by contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and the benefit of additional breast MRI. J Cancer 6:144–150CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD et al (2014) Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol 83:1350–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva M. Fallenberg
    • 1
  • Florian F. Schmitzberger
    • 1
  • Heba Amer
    • 1
  • Barbara Ingold-Heppner
    • 2
  • Corinne Balleyguier
    • 3
  • Felix Diekmann
    • 4
  • Florian Engelken
    • 1
  • Ritse M. Mann
    • 5
  • Diane M. Renz
    • 6
  • Ulrich Bick
    • 1
  • Bernd Hamm
    • 1
  • Clarisse Dromain
    • 3
  1. 1.Clinic of Radiology, Campus Virchow-KlinikumCharité Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institut of PathologyCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGustave Roussy Cancer CampusVillejuifFrance
  4. 4.Department of Medical ImagingSt. Joseph-Stift BremenBremenGermany
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyUniversitätsklinikum JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations