Abstract PS3-23: Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery
Authors: Carnahan Molly , Pockaj Barbara , Pizzitola Victor , Giurescu Marina , Lorans Roxanne , Eversman William , Sharpe Richard , Cronin Patricia , Northfelt Donald , Anderson Karen , Ernst Brenda , Patel Bhavika 
Published: February 2021

Abstract
Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technique utilizing iodinated contrast to highlight areas of neovascularity. The role of CEM in patients with breast implants has not yet been characterized. We report our clinical experience of CEM in patients with breast augmentation surgery to better understand the potential diagnostic utility and limitations of CEM in the setting of breast implants.
Materials and Methods: A HIPPA compliant, IRB exempt single-institution review of prospective CEM cases who had “breast implants” in their report between 01/2015 and 03/2020. Medical records were reviewed to supplement database information.
Results: Forty-six patients were included with a mean age of 52 years (range 33-72). Clinical indications included: high risk research screen 3 (6%), diagnostic evaluation for abnormal imaging 24 (52%), further evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancer 12 (26%) or assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response 7 (15%). Thirty patients had malignant lesions. Histology was invasive ductal carcinoma (90%), invasive lobular carcinoma (7%), and ductal carcinoma in situ (3%). CEM identified the index cancer and extent of disease in 28/30 (93%) of malignant cases. In two patients (7%), the malignant lesion was not included in the field-of-view due to its location. One of these lesions was a far medial mass within the breast which was detected by ultrasound alone. The other false negative CEM was a palpable axillary mass negative on both mammogram (MG) and MRI but seen by ultrasound.
Twenty-three (50%) underwent additional breast MRI of which 20 had an already diagnosed cancer. the findings on CEM were concordant with MR imaging for the index lesion in 19/20 (95%) cases (kappa=0.86; p &lt;0.001).
Six additional lesions were found by CEM and confirmed by MRI. Of these lesions, 33% were found to be malignant and changed the surgical procedure. Four were only seen on CEM (no MRI comparison was available) and 75% were found to be malignant. One was only seen on MRI and was benign. One additional lesion was only seen as an asymmetry on MG without CEM or MRI correlate. This was benign on both the biopsy and surgical pathology.
Conclusions: CEM appears to be a valuable breast imaging modality for diagnostic evaluations and surgical staging, including patients with breast implants. Due to technical artifacts and positioning limitations for posterior lesions, we recommend performing CEM with implant displaced views. Breast centers that use CEM, should be aware of field of view as a potential limitation when evaluating extent of disease in patients with breast augmentation.
Citation Format: Molly Carnahan, Barbara Pockaj, Victor Pizzitola, Marina Giurescu, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Patricia Cronin, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Brenda Ernst, Bhavika Patel. Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-23.