Cancer Conspicuity on Low-energy Images of Contrast-enhanced Mammography Compared With 2D Mammography. Issue 1 (9th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Konstantopoulos, Christina; Mehta, Tejas S; Brook, Alexander; Dialani, Vandana; Mehta, Rashmi; Fein-Zachary, Valerie; Phillips, Jordana
• Is Part Of: Journal of breast imaging. Volume 4:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 31
• Page End: 38
• Publication Date: 2021-12-09
• Subjects: contrast-enhanced mammography -- digital mammography -- lesion conspicuity; Breast -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Breast -- Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 616.994490
• DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbab085
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2631-6110

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Low-energy (LE) images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) have been shown to be noninferior to digital mammography. However, our experience is that LE images are superior to 2D mammography. Our purpose was to compare cancer appearance on LE to 2D images. Methods: In this IRB-approved retrospective study, seven breast radiologists evaluated 40 biopsy-proven cancer cases on craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) LE images and recent 2D images for cancer visibility, confidence in margins, and conspicuity of findings using a Likert scale. Objective measurements were performed using contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) estimated from regions of interest placed on tumor and background parenchyma. Reader agreement was evaluated using Fleiss kappa. Per-reader comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon test and overall comparisons used three-way analysis of variance. Results: Low-energy images showed improved performance for visibility (CC LE 4.0 vs 2D 3.5, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.7 vs 2D 3.5, P = 0.01), confidence in margins (CC LE 3.2 vs 2D 2.8, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.1 vs 2D 2.9, P < 0.008), and conspicuity compared to tissue density compared to 2D mammography (CC LE 3.6 vs 2D 3.2, P < 0.001 and MLO LE 3.5 vs 2D 3.2, P < 0.001). The average CNR was significantly higher for LE than for digital mammography (CC 2.1 vs 3.2, P < 0.001 and MLO 2.1 vs 3.4, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our results suggest that cancers may be better visualized on the LE CEM images compared with the 2D digital mammogram.