Abstract Objectives: to assess the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the management of breast architectural distortions (AD) classified as BI-RADS3 in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Materials & methods: we retrospectively reviewed 328 women with 332 ADs detected on DBT from January 2017 to October 2021 and selected those classified as BI-RADS3 receiving CEM as problem solving. In CEM recombined images we evaluated the contrast enhancement (CE) of AD according to its presence/absence, type according to CEM BI-RADS lexicon, and size (<10 mm or ≥10 mm). AD with enhancement underwent breast biopsy by core needle biopsy or vacuum-assisted biopsy while AD without enhancement underwent imaging follow-up or biopsy if detected in high- or intermediate-risk women. Results: AD with enhancement were 174 (52.4%): 72 (41.4%) were malignant lesions, 102 (59.6%) false positive results: 28 (16%) B3 lesions and 74 (42.5%) benign lesions. AD without enhancement were 158 (47.6%): 26 (16.5%) were subjected to biopsy (1 malignant lesion and 25 benign lesions) while the other 132 cases were sent to imaging follow-up, still negative after two years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) and accuracy of CEM were 98.63%, 60.62%, 41.38%, 99.37% and 68.98%. The area under the curve determined by ROC for CEM was 0.796 (95% CI, 0.749–0.844). Conclusion: CEM has shown a high sensitivity and NPV in the evaluation of BI-RADS3 AD. We showed promising results in favor of CEM as a complementary tool in assessing AD lesions to avoid unnecessary biopsies without compromising cancer detection. Clinical relevance statement: our findings are encouraging towards the utility of CEM as a valuable complementary tool for the evaluation of BI-RADS 3 AD, to reduce unnecessary biopsies for its high NPV, without compromising the effectiveness of cancer detection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bellini et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: