Diagnostic performance of MRI, molecular breast imaging, and contrast-enhanced mammography in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer

Jules H. Sumkin*, Wendie A. Berg, Gloria J. Carter, Andriy I. Bandos, Denise M. Chough, Marie A. Ganott, Christiane M. Hakim, Amy E. Kelly, Margarita L. Zuley, Golbahar Houshmand, Maria I. Anello, David Gur

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Scopus citations


Background: Staging newly diagnosed breast cancer by using dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI is limited by access, high cost, and false-positive findings. The utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and 99mTc sestamibi-based molecular breast imaging (MBI) in this setting is largely unknown. Purpose: To compare extent-of-disease assessments by using MRI, CEM, and MBI versus pathology in women with breast cancer. Materials and Methods: In this HIPAA-compliant prospective study, women with biopsy-proven breast cancer underwent MRI, CEM, and MBI between October 2014 and April 2018. Eight radiologists independently interpreted each examination result prospectively and were blinded to interpretations of findings with the other modalities. Visibility of index malignancies, lesion size, and additional suspicious lesions (malignant or benign) were compared during pathology review. Accuracy of index lesion sizing and detection of additional lesions in women without neoadjuvant chemotherapy were compared. Results: A total of 102 women were enrolled and 99 completed the study protocol (mean age, 51 years 6 11 [standard deviation]; range, 32-77 years). Lumpectomy or mastectomy was performed in 71 women (79 index malignancies) without neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in 28 women (31 index malignancies) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Of the 110 index malignancies, MRI, CEM, and MBI depicted 102 (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 97%), 100 (91%; 95% CI: 84%, 96%), and 101 (92%; 95% CI: 85%, 96%) malignancies, respectively. In patients without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pathologic size of index malignancies was overestimated with all modalities (P = .02). MRI led to overestimation of 24% (17 of 72) of malignancies by more than 1.5 cm compared with 11% (eight of 70) with CEM and 15% (11 of 72) with MBI. MRI depicted more (P = .007) nonindex lesions, with sensitivity similar to that of CEM or MBI, resulting in lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies (13 of 46 [28%; 95% CI: 17%, 44%] for MRI; 14 of 27 [52%; 95% CI: 32%, 71%] for CEM; and 11 of 25 [44%; 95% CI: 24%, 65%] for MBI (overall P = .01). Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, and MRI showed similar detection of all malignancies. MRI depicted more nonindex suspicious benign lesions than did contrast-enhanced mammography or molecular breast imaging, leading to lower positive predictive value of additional biopsies. All three modalities led to overestimation of index tumor size, particularly MRI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)531-540
Number of pages10
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2019
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Diagnostic performance of MRI, molecular breast imaging, and contrast-enhanced mammography in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this