Prediction of Underestimation Using Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Patients Diagnosed as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ on Preoperative Core Biopsy

We evaluated the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the prediction of DCIS underestimation in comparison with mammography, breast US, and breast MRI. Area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.843 for model 1 including breast MRI, whereas AUC was 0.823 for model 2 including CESM, which didn't show a significant difference (P = .968). There was no significant difference in the ability to predict the DCIS underestimation based on models which included disease extent on breast MRI or CESM Background: To assess the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the prediction of DCIS underestimation in comparison with mammography, breast US, and breast MRI. Patients and Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients diagnosed with DCIS on preoperative core biopsy. Visibility, lesion type, and extent on each imaging modality, CESM gray values (CGV) were evaluated. Pathologic features of core biopsy and surgery were recorded. Chi-square or Fisher's exact test were used for univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to find independent predictors for DCIS underestimation and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed. Results: A total of 113 lesions in 108 patients were analyzed (50 pure DCIS; 63 underestimated DCIS). Visibility on mammography, breast US, CESM, and breast MRI were 44%, 76%, 58%, and 80% for pure DCIS, and 73%, 81%, 86%, and 92% for underestimated DCIS. Tumor extents on surgical pathology of pure and underestimated DCIS were 1.11 +/- 1.35 cm and 2.61 +/- 2.09 cm. On multivariate analysis, nuclear grade and suspected invasion on core biopsy, visibility on mammography, and extent on breast MRI were independent factors for the model 1, whereas nuclear grade on core biopsy, extent on CESM, and mean CGV on MLO-recombined image were independent factors for the model 2. Area under ROC curve (AUC) was 0.843 for model 1 including breast MRI, whereas AUC was 0.823 for model 2 including CESM, which didn't show a significant difference (P = .968). Conclusion: For detecting underestimated DCIS, CESM was superior to mammography and breast US, and comparable to breast MRI.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for predicting the underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared to other breast imaging techniques. The results showed that CESM was superior to mammography and breast ultrasound in detecting underestimated DCIS, and comparable to breast MRI.