Diagnostic Accuracy and Incremental Value of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Compared With Full Field Digital Mammography in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy and incremental value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared with full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective analysis was performed with 150 consecutive patients who underwent CEM at our institute between November 2020 and February 2021, fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The first round of analysis included a review of FFDM with an interpretation of findings as per the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) lexicon and the assignment of the BIRADS category to the detected abnormalities. After this documentation, a second round of analysis included a review of recombined subtracted images of CEM. The diagnostic accuracy of FFDM and CEM was calculated with histopathology as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Among the 150 cases assessed, 202 lesions were detected with histopathological correlation, of which 42 were benign and 160 were malignant. The sensitivity of FFDM was 90.6% compared to 98.12% for CEM. The specificity of FFDM was 66.7% compared to 76.19% for CEM. The negative predictive value (NPV) of FFDM was low, at 65.12%; CEM showed a better NPV, at 91.43%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was almost the same, at 94.01% for CEM and 91.19% for FFDM. The area under the curve (AUC) was superior for CEM compared to that of FFDM, with a value of 0.87. FFDM had a low sensitivity, especially in dense breast parenchyma, at 88.79% and a specificity of 70%, whereas CEM showed a higher sensitivity, specificity, and NPV, measuring 99.14%, 76.67%, and 95.83%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Superior sensitivity and high NPV for CEM make it a preferable modality compared with FFDM, especially in dense breast parenchyma, where CEM overcomes the limitations of FFDM. We conclude that CEM is superior to FFDM in evaluating the extent of disease, additional satellite lesion detection, and ruling out ambiguous findings.