RSNA 2016

Abstract Archives of the RSNA, 2016


SSJ01-05

Comparison of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography and Whole Breast Screening Ultrasound for Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening

Tuesday, Nov. 29 3:40PM - 3:50PM Room: Arie Crown Theater



FDA Discussions may include off-label uses.

Janice S. Sung, MD, New York, NY (Presenter) Nothing to Disclose
Maxine S. Jochelson, MD, New York, NY (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Carol H. Lee, MD, New York, NY (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Jonine L. Bernstein, New York, NY (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Anne S. Reiner, MPH, New York, NY (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Elizabeth A. Morris, MD, New York, NY (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
Christopher E. Comstock, MD, New York, NY (Abstract Co-Author) Nothing to Disclose
PURPOSE

To compare the performance of contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and whole breast screening ultrasound (WBUS) for supplemental breast cancer screening.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

This is a prospective IRB approved trial recruiting asymptomatic women scheduled for a screening mammogram and WBUS within 30 days of one another. Once accrued to the trial, a CEDM was performed in place of the screening mammogram. Between December, 2014 – March, 2016, 126 women enrolled. The CEDM and WBUS were performed at the same visit and interpreted independently by 2 radiologists blinded to the other modality. For the CEDM, the low dose 2D FFDM images were first interpreted alone prior to being given the contrast-enhanced images. Once final recommendations for each modality were recorded, the patient was managed per standard institutional practice after integrating findings of both studies. For indeterminate findings seen on the contrast-enhanced images of the CEDM but not the low dose 2D or targeted ultrasound, an MRI was performed for further evaluation. If no suspicious correlate was present on the MRI, a 6 month follow up CEDM was recommended. The cancer detection rate (CDR), number of work ups generated for findings seen only on the contrast-enahnced images alone, and the PPV3 of biopsy were determined. Risk factors (breast density, family history (FH), personal history (PH), BRCA status, prior high risk lesion) were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 54 (range: 30-72). 106/126 (84%) of women had dense breasts. 5 (4%) women had no additional risk factors, 50 (40%) a PH of breast cancer, and 41 (33%) a FH in a 1st degree relative. 5 cancers (1 IDC, 1 invasive adenosquamous carcinoma, 3 DCIS) were detected in 4 women for a CDR of 40/1000. Of the 5 cancers, 1 (DCIS) was seen on the 2D FFDM, 2 (1 IDC, 1 DCIS) on the WBUS, and all 5 cancers were detected on the CEDM. MRI was recommended for further evaluation of CEDM only findings in 9 (8%) of patients; of these 4 were negative. The PPV3 of biopsy was 42% of CEDM and 50% for WBUS.

CONCLUSION

The cancer detection rate of CEDM is higher than both 2D FFDM and WBUS. However, an MRI may be recommended in 8% of patients for further evaluation of CEDM only findings.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE/APPLICATION

Our early results suggest that CEDM has the potential to be a more sensitive alternative to WBUS for supplemental breast cancer screening.