Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Breast Lesions: A Pilot Study.

Objectives: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an accurate competitor for contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI), but the examination is limited by the lack of 3D information. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) allows better lesion detection and characterization compared with mammography. The availability of quasi-3D contrast imaging could further improve the performance of CEM. The aim of our analysis was to compare the diagnostic performance of a contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis prototype (CE-DBTp) to CEM and to CE-MRI.

Materials and methods: This prospective study was approved by the ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. Women who presented with suspicious findings on mammography, DBT, or ultrasound were invited to participate in the study. Participants underwent CEM and CE-DBTp of the breast with the suspicious findings as well as bilateral CE-MRI. Histology was used as the standard of reference. Four readers (R1 and R2 non-experienced; R3 and R4 experienced) evaluated the images, blinded to patients' history, previous imaging, and histology. The readers evaluated CEM, CE-DBTp, and CE-MRI in separate sessions and gave a BI-RADS score for each finding. Sensitivity, specificity, lesion conspicuity, and readers' confidence were calculated and compared.

Results: We included 84 patients (mean age, 56 years; range, 39-70) with 91 histologically verified breast lesions (27 benign, 64 malignant). The accuracy of the CE-DBTp was high, but significant differences were seen between experienced (both 86.8%) and non-experienced readers (76.9% and 78%, P = 0.021). No differences were found between CEM and CE-DBTp, whereas the accuracy of CE-MRI was higher (P = 0.002). Sensitivity with CE-DBTp varied (89.1% to 100%) between experienced and non-experienced readers (P = 0.074), and it was comparable to CEM but lower than CE-MRI (P = 0.003). Specificity was variable between readers with all modalities. Lesion conspicuity was higher for the CE-DBTp and CE-MRI than for CEM, and confidence was significantly higher with the CE-DBTp than with CEM for one of the readers (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: A high sensitivity and good accuracy were achieved with the CE-DBTp. Lesion conspicuity and readers' confidence were higher with the CE-DBTp compared with CEM. However, CE-MRI had the highest sensitivity and accuracy.