Abstract
Abstract
Background
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a recently developed, cost-effective imaging technique that offers both anatomical and functional breast imaging. Lesion conspicuity, a newly introduced lexicon in the ACR BIRADS supplementary atlas on CEM (2022), lacks sufficient data to correlate with malignancy likelihood. The feasibility of assessing contrast kinetics with CEM remains uncertain, and there is a scarcity of available data. Our research aims to address these gaps.
Results
Two radiologists, blinded to pathological reports, independently evaluated 504 CEM enhanced breast lesions with histopathology reports, out of which 176 were benign and 328 were malignant. Subjective qualitative assessment of lesion conspicuity and contrast kinetics was done for each enhancing lesion. The lesion conspicuity was classified as low, moderate, or high. The kinetic behavior of each lesion was categorized into either persistent, plateau, or washout. The distribution of lesion conspicuity among benign and malignant lesions, respectively, was as follows: for low conspicuity, 74.4% versus 25.6%; for moderate conspicuity, 30.6% versus 69.4%; and for high conspicuity, 8.4% versus 91.6%. Regarding contrast kinetics and their distribution between benign and malignant lesions, persistent kinetics was detected in 95.6% compared to 4.4%, plateau kinetics in 43.4% versus 56.6%, and washout kinetics in 3.5% versus 96.5%. Statistically significant differences in distribution between benign and malignant lesions were observed for both lexicons (P < 0.001). The inter-observer agreement for lesion conspicuity (kappa = 0.97) and contrast kinetics (kappa = 0.92) was deemed excellent.
Conclusion
The addition of lesion conspicuity and contrast kinetics as lexicons in CEM could enhance its diagnostic accuracy.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. Patel BK, Naylor ME, Kosiorek HE, Lopez-Alvarez YM, Miller AM, Pizzitola VJ, Pockaj BA (2017) Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as an adjunct for tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion. Clin imaging 1(46):44–52
2. Phillips J, Miller MM, Mehta TS, Fein-Zachary V, Nathanson A, Hori W, Monahan-Earley R, Slanetz PJ (2017) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes. Clin Imaging 1(42):193–197
3. Barra FR, Ribeiro AC, Mathieu OD, Rodrigues AC (2014) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: examination protocol. Diagn Interv Imaging 3(95):351–352
4. Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ (2016) ACR BI-RADS®. ACR BI-RADS®-Atlasder Mammadiagnostik: RichtlinienzuBefundung, Handlungsempfehlungen und Monitoring 2:474
5. Lee CH, Phillips J, Sung JS, Lewin JM, Newell MS (2022) Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) (A supplement to ACR BI-RADS® Mammography 2013). AJR