Maxine S Jochelson1, Katja Pinker2, D David Dershaw3, Mary Hughes3, Girard F Gibbons3, Kareem Rahbar3, Mark E Robson4, Debra A Mangino4, Debra Goldman5, Chaya S Moskowitz5, Elizabeth A Morris3, Janice S Sung3. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. Electronic address: jochelsm@mskcc.org. 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA; Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10065, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a new breast imaging technology increasingly used in the diagnostic setting but its utility in the pure screening setting has not been reported. The goal of this pilot study is to prospectively compare screening CEDM to breast MRI in women with an increased risk for breast cancer. METHODS: In this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant study, 318 women at increased breast cancer risk were consented (December 2012-May 2015) to undergo CEDM in addition to their scheduled MRI. CEDM was performed within 30days of screening MRI. CEDM was interpreted blinded to MRI. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 2-year imaging follow-up. RESULTS: Data from 307/318 patients were evaluable. Three cancers (two invasive cancers, one ductal carcinoma in situ) were detected at first round screening: MRI detected all three and CEDM detected the two invasive cancers. None of the three cancers was seen on the low energy mammograms which are comparable to conventional mammography. At 2year imaging follow up, there were 5 additional screen detected cancers and no palpable cancers. The positive predictive value 3 (PPV3) for CEDM was 15% (2/13, 95% CI: 2-45%) and 14% for MRI (3/21, 95% CI: 3-36%). The specificity of CEDM and MRI were 94.7% and 94.1% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both CEDM and MRI detected additional cancers not seen on conventional mammography, primarily invasive cancers. Our pilot data suggest that CEDM could be valuable as a supplemental imaging exam for women at increased risk for breast cancer who do not meet the criteria for MRI or for whom access to MRI is limited. Validation in larger multi institutional trials is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: Contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a new breast imaging technology increasingly used in the diagnostic setting but its utility in the pure screening setting has not been reported. The goal of this pilot study is to prospectively compare screening CEDM to breast MRI in women with an increased risk for breast cancer. METHODS: In this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant study, 318 women at increased breast cancer risk were consented (December 2012-May 2015) to undergo CEDM in addition to their scheduled MRI. CEDM was performed within 30days of screening MRI. CEDM was interpreted blinded to MRI. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 2-year imaging follow-up. RESULTS: Data from 307/318 patients were evaluable. Three cancers (two invasive cancers, one ductal carcinoma in situ) were detected at first round screening: MRI detected all three and CEDM detected the two invasive cancers. None of the three cancers was seen on the low energy mammograms which are comparable to conventional mammography. At 2year imaging follow up, there were 5 additional screen detected cancers and no palpable cancers. The positive predictive value 3 (PPV3) for CEDM was 15% (2/13, 95% CI: 2-45%) and 14% for MRI (3/21, 95% CI: 3-36%). The specificity of CEDM and MRI were 94.7% and 94.1% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both CEDM and MRI detected additional cancers not seen on conventional mammography, primarily invasive cancers. Our pilot data suggest that CEDM could be valuable as a supplemental imaging exam for women at increased risk for breast cancer who do not meet the criteria for MRI or for whom access to MRI is limited. Validation in larger multi institutional trials is warranted.
Authors: Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.959