Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography With Conventional Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study

PurposeTo perform a pilot evaluation of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for screening to determine whether it can improve accuracy and reader confidence in diagnosis.Methods and MaterialsThis institutional review board–approved reader study was comprised of 64 de-identified CEM cases acquired from December 1, 2014, to June 7, 2016, including 48 negative, 5 biopsy-proven benign, and 11 biopsy-proven malignancies. Negative cases were followed for at least 2 years without evidence of cancer. Ten breast imagers of varying experience first rated the low-energy (LE) mammogram and then the CEM examination using BI-RADS categories and a 5-point Likert scale for confidence in diagnosis.ResultsThere were 635 out a total possible 640 complete reader interpretations included in this analysis. The remaining five incomplete interpretations were excluded. Median sensitivity and specificity improved with the addition of CEM (sensitivity: 0.86 95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.74-0.95] versus 1 95% CI: 0.83-1.00], specificity: 0.85 95% CI: 0.64-0.94] versus 0.88 95% CI: 0.80-0.92]). Individual receiver operating characteristic curves showed significant improvement with CEM (mean area under the curve increase = 0.056 95% CI: 0.015-0.097], P = .002). The addition of CEM significantly improved average confidence in 5 of 10 readers when compared with LE (P < .0001) and improved pooled confidence across all tissue density categories, except the almost entirely fatty category. There was a trend toward improved confidence with increasing tissue density with CEM. Degree of background parenchymal enhancement did not affect readers’ level of improvement in confidence when interpreting CEM.SummaryCEM improved reader performance and confidence compared with viewing only LE, suggesting a role for CEM in breast cancer screening for which larger trials are warranted.