Top

Published in:

04-04-2023 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities — DBT, CEM, MBI, PEM, MRI, AI

Authors: Ahmed Elhatw, Hannah L. Chung, Rasha M. Kamal, Charles De Jesus, Shanen Jean, Varnita Vishwanath, Hanna R. Ferreira Dalla Pria, Miral M. Patel, Mary S. Guirguis, Tanya W. Moseley

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 2/2023

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To discuss how advanced breast imaging modalities can supplement standard breast imaging with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI.

Recent Findings

For the last 40–50 years, the primary breast cancer screening examination has been mammography which has undergone many changes from xeromammography, film-screen analog, to digital mammography techniques. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are the most recent advances to digital mammography. Molecular breast imaging (MBI) and positron emission mammography (PEM) are nuclear medicine breast examinations that utilize mammographic positioning and are useful supplements to standard breast imaging examination.

Summary

Advances in mammographic techniques have improved the sensitivity and specificity of mammography in detecting breast cancer, demonstrating the extent of disease, and evaluating the response to systemic treatments. Understanding how advanced mammographic techniques fit in with other available breast imaging examinations helps ensure optimal evaluation to help guide treatment decisions.

•• Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660. Findings from this study demonstrate the global burden of cancer and illustrate the increasing significance of cancer as a primary cause of death globally.CrossRefPubMed

Wilkinson L, Gathani T. Understanding breast cancer as a global health concern. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1130):20211033. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211033.CrossRefPubMed

Niell BL, Freer PE, Weinfurtner RJ, Arleo EK, Drukteinis JS. Screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2017;55(6):1145–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2017.06.004.CrossRefPubMed

Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, Eby PR, Newell MS, Moy L, Destounis S, Leung JWT, Hendrick RE, Smetherman D. Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021;18(9):1280–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021.CrossRefPubMed

Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3 Pt A):408–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.11.034.CrossRefPubMed

Mainiero MB, Lourenco A, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, D’Orsi C, Harvey JA, Hayes MK, Huynh PT, Jokich PM, Lee SJ, Lehman CD, Mankoff DA, Nepute JA, Patel SB, Reynolds HE, Sutherland ML, Haffty BG. ACR Appropriateness Criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(11S):R45–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.021.CrossRefPubMed

Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett L, D’Orsi C, Jong R, Rebner M, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. 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.CrossRefPubMed

MQSA National Statistics. n.d. Available at http:MQSANationalStatistics|FDA. Accessed on 30 Jan 2023.

Khanani S, Hruska C, Lazar A, Hoernig M, Hebecker A, Obuchowski N. Performance of wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in comparison to full field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2023;30(1):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.03.026.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sprague BL, Coley RY, Kerlikowske K, Rauscher GH, Henderson LM, Onega T, Lee CI, Herschorn SD, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL. Assessment of radiologist performance in breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(3):e201759. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1759.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Marinovich ML, Hunter KE, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis or mammography: a meta-analysis of cancer detection and recall. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(9):942–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy121.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Caumo F, Romanucci G, Hunter K, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Macaskill P, Houssami N. Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(2):391–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4756-4.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, Gur D, Østerås BH, Gullien R, Hofvind S. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):489–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Aase HS, Danielsen AS, Hoff SR, Holen ÅS, Haldorsen IS, Hovda T, Hanestad B, Sandvik CK, Hofvind S. Mammographic features and screening outcome in a randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2021;141:109753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109753.CrossRefPubMed

15.

McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–43. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pujara AC, Hui J, Wang LC. Architectural distortion in the era of digital breast tomosynthesis: outcomes and implications for management. Clin Imaging. 2019;54:133–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.01.004.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Sujlana PS, Mahesh M, Vedantham S, Harvey SC, Mullen LA, Woods RW. Digital breast tomosynthesis: image acquisition principles and artifacts. Clin Imaging. 2019;55:188–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.07.013.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tirada N, Li G, Dreizin D, Robinson L, Khorjekar G, Dromi S, Ernst T. Digital breast tomosynthesis: physics, artifacts, and quality control considerations. Radiographics. 2019;39(2):413–26. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180046.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291021276.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Mammography market shares. n.d. Available at https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5662852/mammography-market-share-size-trends-industry#rela1-5600738. Accessed on 1 Feb 2023.

21.

Sogani J, Mango VL, Keating D, Sung JS, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future. Clin Imaging. 2021;69:269–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.003.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sudhir R, Sannapareddy K, Potlapalli A, Krishnamurthy PB, Buddha S, Koppula V. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis, synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast. Br J Radiol. 2021;94(1118):20201046. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201046.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Nucera E, Parrinello G, Gangemi S, Buonomo A, Aruanno A, Lohmeyer FM, Inchingolo R, Rizzi A. Contrast medium hypersensitivity: a large Italian study with long-term follow-up. Biomedicines. 2022;10(4):759. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10040759.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2D FFDM and 3D tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):362–72. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16743.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kamal R, Mansour S, Farouk A, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography in comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: which modality is appropriate for whom? Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2021.

26.

Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17239.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Adams AM, Jong RA, Barr RG, Lehrer DE, Pisano ED, Evans WP 3rd, Mahoney MC, Hovanessian Larsen L, Gabrielli GJ, Mendelson EB. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010;254(1):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2541090953.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, D’Alessio D, Comstock CE, Lee CH, Pike MC, Ayhan M, Moskowitz CS, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2019;293(1):81–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182660.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Hogan MP, Amir T, Sevilimedu V, Sung J, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography screening for intermediate-risk women with a history of lobular neoplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(6):1486–91. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.23480.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Montrognon F, Clatot F, Berghian A, Douvrin F, Quieffin F, Defta D, Buquet A, Ferret M, Lequesne J, Leheurteur M, Fontanilles M, Georgescu D, Callonnec F. Impact of preoperative staging with contrast-enhanced mammography for localized breast cancer management. Br J Radiol. 2022;95(1134):20210765. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210765.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bernardi D, Vatteroni G, Acquaviva A, Valentini M, Sabatino V, Bolengo I, Pellegrini M, Fantò C, Trimboli RM. Contrast-enhanced mammography versus MRI in the evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response in patients with breast cancer: a prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;219(6):884–94. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.22.27756.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Shermis RB, Redfern RE, Burns J, Kudrolli H. Molecular breast imaging in breast cancer screening and problem solving. Radiographics. 2017;37(5):1309–606. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160204.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, Lobrano ME, Ross E, Amodei L, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006;12(4):309–23.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Akers SR, Werner TJ, Rubello D, Alavi A, Cheng G. 18F-FDG uptake and clearance in patients with compromised renal function. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37(8):825–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000513.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Covington MF, Parent EE, Dibble EH, Rauch GM, Fowler AM. Advances and future directions in molecular breast imaging. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.261988.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Dang LA, Chazard E, Poncelet E, Serb T, Rusu A, Pauwels X, Parsy C, Poclet T, Cauliez H, Engelaere C, Ramette G, Brienne C, Dujardin S, Laurent N. Impact of artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening with mammography. Breast Cancer. 2022;29(6):967–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-022-01375-9.CrossRefPubMed

37.

•• Le EPV, Wang Y, Huang Y, Hickman S, Gilbert FJ. Artificial intelligence in breast imaging. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(5):357–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.02.006. Findings from this study demonstrate that artificial intelligence (AI), once effectively integrated into imaging practices, has the potential to reduce diagnostic errors, increase radiologists’ accuracy, and aid in decision-making.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities — DBT, CEM, MBI, PEM, MRI, AI
Authors: Ahmed Elhatw
Hannah L. Chung
Rasha M. Kamal
Charles De Jesus
Shanen Jean
Varnita Vishwanath
Hanna R. Ferreira Dalla Pria
Miral M. Patel
Mary S. Guirguis
Tanya W. Moseley
Publication date: 04-04-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Breast Cancer
Mammography
Artificial Intelligence
Breast Cancer
Screening Examination
Breast MRI
Mammography
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 2/2023
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00483-5

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2023

Pictorial Review of Male Breast Disease

Breast-to-Brain Metastasis: from Microenvironment to Plasticity

Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer

Intramammary Metastases from Extramammary Malignancies: An Update

Robot-assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: Recent Advancements and Ongoing Controversies

Current Updates in Management of HER2-Positive and HER2-Low Breast Cancer

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer