Andrea Cozzi1, Simone Schiaffino2, Marianna Fanizza3, Veronica Magni1, Laura Menicagli2, Cristian Giuseppe Monaco2, Adrienn Benedek2, Diana Spinelli2, Giovanni Di Leo2, Giuseppe Di Giulio3, Francesco Sardanelli4,5. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milano, Italy. 2. Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy. 3. Department of Breast Radiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Viale Camillo Golgi 19, 27100, Pavia, Italy. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Luigi Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milano, Italy. francesco.sardanelli@unimi.it. 5. Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy. francesco.sardanelli@unimi.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar's test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5-48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7-64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2-97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1-78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for reducing the biopsy rate of screening recalls. METHODS: Recalled women were prospectively enrolled to undergo CEM alongside standard assessment (SA) through additional views, tomosynthesis, and/or ultrasound. Exclusion criteria were symptoms, implants, allergy to contrast agents, renal failure, and pregnancy. SA and CEM were independently evaluated by one of six radiologists, who recommended biopsy or 2-year follow-up. Biopsy rates according to SA or recombined CEM (rCEM) were compared with the McNemar's test. Diagnostic performance was calculated considering lesions with available final histopathology. RESULTS: Between January 2019 and July 2021, 220 women were enrolled, 207 of them (median age 56.6 years) with 225 suspicious findings analysed. Three of 207 patients (1.4%) developed mild self-limiting adverse reactions to iodinated contrast agent. Overall, 135/225 findings were referred for biopsy, 90/225 by both SA and rCEM, 41/225 by SA alone and 4/225 by rCEM alone (2/4 being one DCIS and one invasive carcinoma). The rCEM biopsy rate (94/225, 41.8%, 95% CI 35.5-48.3%) was 16.4% lower (p < 0.001) than the SA biopsy rate (131/225, 58.2%, 95% CI 51.7-64.5%). Considering the 124/135 biopsies with final histopathology (44 benign, 80 malignant), rCEM showed a 93.8% sensitivity (95% CI 86.2-97.3%) and a 65.9% specificity (95% CI 51.1-78.1%), all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable as suspicious calcifications on low-energy images. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SA, the rCEM-based work-up would have avoided biopsy for 37/225 (16.4%) suspicious findings. Including low-energy images in interpretation provided optimal overall CEM sensitivity. KEY POINTS: • The work-up of suspicious findings detected at mammographic breast cancer screening still leads to a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, involving between 2 and 6% of screened women. • In 207 recalled women with 225 suspicious findings, recombined images of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) showed a 93.8% sensitivity and a 65.9% specificity, all 5 false negatives being ductal carcinoma in situ detectable on low-energy images as suspicious calcifications. • CEM could represent an easily available one-stop shop option for the morphofunctional assessment of screening recalls, potentially reducing the biopsy rate by 16.4%.
Authors: Maysa E El-Sayed; Emad A Rakha; Jacquie Reed; Andrew Hs Lee; Andrew J Evans; Ian O Ellis Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-07-14 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Antonio Ponti; Julietta Patnick; Nieves Ascunce; Sisse Njor; Mireille Broeders; Livia Giordano; Alfonso Frigerio; Sven Törnberg; G Van Hal; P Martens; O Májek; J Danes; M von Euler-Chelpin; A Aasmaa; A Anttila; N Becker; Z Péntek; A Budai; S Mádai; P Fitzpatrick; T Mooney; M Zappa; L Ventura; A Scharpantgen; S Hofvind; P Seroczynski; A Morais; V Rodrigues; M J Bento; J Gomes de Carvalho; C Natal; M Prieto; C Sánchez-Contador Escudero; R Zubizarreta Alberti; S B Fernández Llanes; N Ascunce; M Ederra Sanza; G Sarriugarte Irigoien; D Salas Trejo; J Ibáñez Cabanell; M Wiege; G Ohlsson; S Törnberg; M Korzeniewska; C de Wolf; J Fracheboud; J Patnick; L Lancucki; S Ducarroz; E Suonio Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2012 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Rochelle Fu; Amy Cantor; Miranda Pappas; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Miranda Pappas; Amy Cantor; Jessica Griffin; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nora Pashayan; Antonis C Antoniou; Urska Ivanus; Laura J Esserman; Douglas F Easton; David French; Gaby Sroczynski; Per Hall; Jack Cuzick; D Gareth Evans; Jacques Simard; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Rita Schmutzler; Odette Wegwarth; Paul Pharoah; Sowmiya Moorthie; Sandrine De Montgolfier; Camille Baron; Zdenko Herceg; Clare Turnbull; Corinne Balleyguier; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Jelle Wesseling; David Ritchie; Marc Tischkowitz; Mireille Broeders; Dan Reisel; Andres Metspalu; Thomas Callender; Harry de Koning; Peter Devilee; Suzette Delaloge; Marjanka K Schmidt; Martin Widschwendter Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 65.011