Application of BI-RADS Descriptors in Contrast-Enhanced Dual-Energy Mammography: Comparison with MRI

&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Background:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; Contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) BI-RADS descriptors are used in the evaluation of contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography (CEDEM) images of mass lesions and are assumed to be applicable. &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Patients and Methods:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; Patients with suspicious mass lesions on mammography (BI-RADS 4 or 5) were included. CEDEM examinations were performed using a modified prototype unit. CE-MRI was performed using a high temporal and high spatial resolution imaging protocol. 2 blinded breast radiologists evaluated all images using criteria related to contrast enhancement intensity and morphology according to the BI-RADS lexicon (5th edition) in 2 sessions. Histopathology was used as the standard of reference. &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Results:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 11 patients with 5 benign and 6 malignant index lesions were included. Enhancement characteristics were similar in the malignant cases. Enhancement of the benign lesions was moderate on CEDEM and strong on MRI. Discrepancies in the BI-RADS descriptors did not influence the final BI-RADS score. Overall, the BI-RADS assessment was almost identical in all cases. 1 malignant lesion was rated BI-RADS 4 with CEDEM and BI-RADS 5 with MRI, and 1 benign was rated BI-RADS 2 and BI-RADS 1, respectively. &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; MRI BI-RADS descriptors of contrast-enhancing lesions can be applied for the morphologic analysis of mass lesions on CEDEM.</jats:p

Low‐Dose, Contrast‐Enhanced Mammography Compared to Contrast‐Enhanced Breast MRI: A Feasibility Study

Background 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