Abstract
Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, single center. POPULATION: Women with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype. ASSESSMENT: Three, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard. STATISTICAL TEST: Lesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics. RESULTS: Included were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%, P = 0.514). DATA CONCLUSION: L-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.