Retrospective analysis compares imaging outcomes using contrast-enhanced mammography and breast MRI in women at increased breast cancer risk, suggesting strong diagnostic capabilities for both...
Background/Objectives: Surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer requires high-sensitivity imaging. This study compared contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) with low-energy CEM (LE-CEM) and breast MRI in this population. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 461 women enrolled in a high-risk imaging protocol (March 2019–October 2022). Lifetime breast cancer risk was estimated using the Tyrer–Cuzick model. All participants underwent CEM and breast MRI ≥ 72 h apart. LE-CEM images were used as a surrogate for digital mammography. Four readers independently interpreted LE-CEM and CEM; a separate group of four readers interpreted MRI. Diagnostic performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) within a multireader, multicase framework. Noninferiority testing was performed with Δ = 0.05. Mean glandular dose (MGD) for CEM was recorded. Results: CEM showed higher sensitivity than LE-CEM (83.0% vs. 68.9%, p < 0.001) with similar specificity (90.8% vs. 92.5%, p = 0.176). Mean AUC increased from 0.856 for LE-CEM to 0.936 for CEM (p < 0.001). CEM and MRI showed comparable sensitivity (82.9% vs. 86.1%, p = 0.547), specificity (90.8% vs. 86.5%, p = 0.318), and mean AUC (0.936 vs. 0.933; p = 0.839), confirming noninferiority of CEM. MGD per view ranged from 1.56 to 3.10 mGy. Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced mammography provides diagnostic accuracy equivalent to breast MRI and superior to LE-CEM, with acceptable radiation dose, supporting its use for surveillance in women at increased breast cancer risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gennaro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: