Feasibility and added value of contrast-enhanced tomosynthesis
Author Block: P. Clauser1, N. Pötsch1, P. Kapetas1, M. Hörnig2, M. Weber1, R-I. Milos1, P. A. Baltzer1, T. H. Helbich1; 1Vienna/AT, 2Forchheim/DE
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a CE-DBT prototype with CEM. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is increasingly used in clinical practice, but its value is limited by the 2D nature of the examination. Contrast-enhanced tomosynthesis (CE-DBT) allows a quasi-3D evaluation of contrast-enhanced images and could improve lesion characterisation.
Methods or Background: This prospective study was approved by the ethics committee and all patients gave written informed consent. Women presenting with suspicious findings on mammography, DBT or ultrasound were invited to participate in the study. Participants underwent CE-DBT of the breast with suspicious findings using a dedicated prototype in addition to CEM. The suspicious findings were biopsied and only histologically verified lesions were included in the analysis. 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 (including mammography and recombined images) and CE-DBT (including DBT and synthetic mammography) in separate sessions and gave a BI-RADS score for each finding. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared.
Results or Findings: We included 84 patients (mean age 56 years, range 39-70) with 91 histologically verified breast lesions (27 benign, 64 malignant). Sensitivity was comparable between CEM and CE-DBT for non-experienced readers, ranging from 90% to 95%. Sensitivity improved using CE-DBT for both experience readers (from 90% and 87% with CEM to 100% and 94% with CE-DBT). Specificity was lower for non-experienced than for experienced readers with both imaging modalities, with no significant differences between modalities.
Conclusion: Our study showed that CE-DBT allowed an improvement in sensitivity, particularly for experienced readers, with no significant decrease in specificity.
Limitations: This study was a single-centre and cancer-enriched dataset.
Funding for this study: Funding was received from Siemens Healthcare GmBH.
Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Yes
Ethics committee - additional information: This prospective study was approved by the local ethics committee.