Low-energy mammography imaging did have a higher specificity rate in comparison to CEM (96.2 percent vs. 88.9 percent), but the researchers also noted improved CEM specificity for follow-up examinations (90.7 percent vs. 85.9 percent at baseline).1
“This could be attributed to the availability of previous images at follow-up rounds of imaging, which facilitates the comparison of contrast enhancement and therefore allows for the consideration of enhancement as unchanged, and therefore benign,” added Nissan and colleagues. “Furthermore, as clinical experience with CEM increases, it may be possible to avoid additional evaluation and/or biopsies for non-enhancing masses and asymmetries.”
Three Key Takeaways
1. Higher sensitivity of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). CEM demonstrated a significantly higher sensitivity rate (88.9 percent) for detecting breast cancer compared to low-energy mammography (27.8 percent), making it more effective for early detection in women with dense breasts.
2. Specificity differences. While low-energy mammography had a higher specificity (96.2 percent vs. 88.9 percent), CEM showed improved specificity for follow-up exams (90.7 percent), indicating its growing diagnostic reliability as more data from previous images becomes available and there is more increased experience with the modality.
3. Potential screening protocol shift. CEM may soon be incorporated into breast cancer screening protocols for women with dense breasts, as it is seen as a superior alternative to conventional mammography, with growing clinical support for its implementation.
In an accompanying editorial, Marc B.I. Lobbes, M.D., Ph.D., called for large prospective trials to build upon the demonstrated research for CEM.3 However, he also maintained that CEM is a safe, superior option to conventional mammography for women with dense breasts and suggested it is only a matter of time before CEM is incorporated into breast cancer screening protocols.
“The implementation of screening CEM no longer seems to be a question of yes or no, but more of when and in what specific populations,” posited Dr. Lobbes, a radiologist in the Department of Medical Imaging at the Zuyderland Medical Center in Geleen, the Netherlands.
(Editor’s note: For related content, see “Current Insights and Emerging Roles for Contrast-Enhanced Mammography,” “Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Dense Breasts: What a New Meta-Analysis Reveals” and “Study Says Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Offers Comparable Breast Cancer Detection to MRI.”)
Beyond the inherent limitations of a single-center retrospective study, the authors acknowledged subjective determination of breast density and the inclusion of women who had other risk factors beyond having extremely dense breasts.
References
1. Nissan N, Comstock CE, Sevilimedu V, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of screening contrast-enhanced mammography for women with extremely dense breasts at increased risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2024 Oct;313(1):e232580. doi: 10.1148/radiol.232580.
2. Bakker ME, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(22):2091-2102.
3. Lobbes MBI. A decade of contrast-enhanced mammography: expanding screening to women at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer. Radiology. 2024 Oct;313(1):e241970. doi: 10:1148/radiol.241970.