Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Breast Lesion Assessment: Accuracy and Surgical Impact

Accurate preoperative tumor sizing is critical for optimal surgical planning in breast cancer. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has emerged as a promising modality, yet its accuracy relative to conventional imaging and pathology requires further validation.

To prospectively evaluate the dimensional accuracy and reproducibility of CEM compared to mammography and ultrasound, using surgical pathology as the reference standard.

A total of 205 patients with 267 breast lesions underwent preoperative CEM, mammography, and ultrasound. Tumor sizes were measured independently by two radiologists. Accuracy was assessed via mean absolute error (MAE), Pearson and Spearman correlations, and inter-reader agreement evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Gwet's AC1. Sensitivity analyses included bootstrap confidence intervals and log-transformed data. The surgical impact of additional lesions detected by CEM was also analyzed.

CEM showed superior accuracy with a mean absolute error of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.24-0.68) compared to mammography (4.06 mm) and ultrasound (3.52 mm) (p < 0.00001). Pearson's correlation between CEM and pathology was exceptionally high (r = 0.995; 95% CI: 0.994-0.996), with similar robustness after log transformation. Inter-reader agreement for CEM was excellent (ICC 0.93; Gwet's AC1 ~0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.98). CEM detected additional lesions in 13.1% of patients, leading to altered surgical management in 6.4%. Background parenchymal enhancement was independently associated with measurement error.

CEM provides highly accurate and reproducible tumor size estimation superior to conventional imaging modalities, with potential clinical impact through detection of additional lesions. Its ability to detect additional lesions not seen on mammography or ultrasound has direct implications for surgical decision making, with the potential to reduce reoperations and improve oncologic and cosmetic outcomes. However, high correlation values and selective patient cohorts warrant cautious interpretation. Further multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings and define CEM's role in clinical practice.