Noam Nissan , Jeffrey S. Reiner, Victoria L. Mango, Hila Fruchtman-Brot , Rosa Elena Ochoa Albiztegui, Yuki Arita, Jill Gluskin , Tali Amir, Kimberly Feigin, Maxine S. Jochelson , Janice S. Sung
{"title":"Non-enhancing asymmetries on screening contrast-enhanced mammography: Is further diagnostic workup required?","authors":"Noam Nissan , Jeffrey S. Reiner, Victoria L. Mango, Hila Fruchtman-Brot , Rosa Elena Ochoa Albiztegui, Yuki Arita, Jill Gluskin , Tali Amir, Kimberly Feigin, Maxine S. Jochelson , Janice S. Sung","doi":"10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Asymmetries on screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) often lead to patient recall. However, in diagnostic settings, negative CEM has effectively classified these as normal or benign, questioning the need for further workup of non-enhancing asymmetries (NEAs).</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A computational search of all screening CEM examinations performed between December-2012 and June-2021 was conducted to identify cases reporting NEAs. Their diagnostic workup was reviewed, and the positive predictive value for cancer was statistically compared to that of enhancing asymmetries on screening CEMs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During the study period, 97 cases of 106 NEAs were identified among 3,482 screening CEM exams (2.8 %). NEAs were classified as asymmetry (n = 83), focal asymmetry (n = 22), and global asymmetry (n = 1), with no cases of developing asymmetry. The mean size of NEAs was 1.0 ± 0.7 cm (range: 0.3–4.9 cm). Diagnostic workup for NEAs included additional mammographic views (AMV) (n = 63), AMV plus ultrasound (n = 30), AMV plus MRI (n = 1), and all three modalities (n = 3), leading to four biopsies. None of the NEAs were malignant on follow-up, as opposed to enhancing asymmetries (P < 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>NEAs detected on CEM were relatively uncommon and were usually investigated with additional mammographic views and US, yielding no cancer. Ruling out malignancy based on lack of enhancement without further workup may reduce patient recall rates and improve CEMs specificity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12063,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 111883"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X24005990","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Asymmetries on screening contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) often lead to patient recall. However, in diagnostic settings, negative CEM has effectively classified these as normal or benign, questioning the need for further workup of non-enhancing asymmetries (NEAs).
Material and methods
A computational search of all screening CEM examinations performed between December-2012 and June-2021 was conducted to identify cases reporting NEAs. Their diagnostic workup was reviewed, and the positive predictive value for cancer was statistically compared to that of enhancing asymmetries on screening CEMs.
Results
During the study period, 97 cases of 106 NEAs were identified among 3,482 screening CEM exams (2.8 %). NEAs were classified as asymmetry (n = 83), focal asymmetry (n = 22), and global asymmetry (n = 1), with no cases of developing asymmetry. The mean size of NEAs was 1.0 ± 0.7 cm (range: 0.3–4.9 cm). Diagnostic workup for NEAs included additional mammographic views (AMV) (n = 63), AMV plus ultrasound (n = 30), AMV plus MRI (n = 1), and all three modalities (n = 3), leading to four biopsies. None of the NEAs were malignant on follow-up, as opposed to enhancing asymmetries (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
NEAs detected on CEM were relatively uncommon and were usually investigated with additional mammographic views and US, yielding no cancer. Ruling out malignancy based on lack of enhancement without further workup may reduce patient recall rates and improve CEMs specificity.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Radiology is an international journal which aims to communicate to its readers, state-of-the-art information on imaging developments in the form of high quality original research articles and timely reviews on current developments in the field.
Its audience includes clinicians at all levels of training including radiology trainees, newly qualified imaging specialists and the experienced radiologist. Its aim is to inform efficient, appropriate and evidence-based imaging practice to the benefit of patients worldwide.