Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Accuracy in Assessing Preoperative Breast Tumor Size

Background. Breast cancer is a leading type of cancer in women. Imaging techniques (ultrasound, mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) play a crucial role in tumor detection and evaluation. The last emerging technique is contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) which provides both morphological and functional information.
Objective: to evaluate CEM accuracy in measuring breast tumor lesions.
Material and methods. The study involved 69 patients followed by the Breast Unit from January 2018 to September 2023. Breast tumor dimensions measured in CEM in the pre-operative stage by three experienced radiologists were compared to the dimension obtained at the histological examination, the current gold standard in assessing tumor size.
Results. We observed a slight overestimation by CEM compared to histology, with a difference between the two measurements not more than 10 mm. CEM underestimated the dimensions in 12 of 69 cases.
Conclusion. The study demonstrated excellent CEM accuracy in preoperative assessment of breast tumors, consistent with previous findings in the literature. CEM could prove to be a valid and safer alternative to MRI in preoperative breast tumor measuring.

1. Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43(13): 1905–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.06.007.

2. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004; 233(3): 830–49. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031484.

3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(17): 1773–83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052911.

4. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57(2): 75–89. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75.

5. Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016; 28: 13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008.

6. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013; 266(3): 743–51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084.

7. Lobbes MBI, Lalji U, Houwers J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(7): 1668–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5.

8. Hobbs MM, Taylor DB, Buzynski S, Peake RE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015; 59(3): 300–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12296.

9. De Azambuja E, Cardoso F, De Castro G, et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12 155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007; 96(10): 1504–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603756.

10. Mori M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Suzuki S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts. Breast Cancer. 2017; 24(1): 104–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0681-8.

11. Tardivel AM, Balleyguier C, Dunant A, et al. Added value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in postscreening assessment. Breast J. 2016; 22(5): 520–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12627.

12. Łuczyńska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E, et al. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit. 2015; 21: 1358–67. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.893018.

13. Fallenberg EM, Schmitzberger FF, Amer H, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(7): 2752–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4650-6.