Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) in the Further Evaluation of BI-RADS 3–4A Breast Lesions: а Systematic Literature Review

Objective. To perform a systematic literature review to evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women with BI-RADS 3–4A breast lesions and to assess its impact on lesion reclassification, biopsy rates, and management strategy. 

Materials and Methods. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedVis, and the Russian Science Citation Index for the period 2015 – January 2025, including original clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses comparing CESM with digital mammography, ultrasound, and MRI in patients classified as BI-RADS 3–4A.

Results. CESM demonstrated high sensitivity (92.7–100 %) and specificity (67.9–100 %), outperforming digital mammography, and allowed safe downgrading of 20–40 % of probably benign lesions to BI-RADS 2, reducing the number of biopsies by 16–43 % while maintaining a high negative predictive value.

Conclusion. CESM is an effective method for further evaluation of BI-RADS 3–4A lesions and dense breast tissue, reduces unnecessary biopsies and short-interval follow-up, and can be considered a cost-effective alternative to MRI in resource-limited settings. 

1. Andronov A. K., Abduraimov A. B. Rol' kontrastnoy dvukhenergeticheskoy spek­ tral'noy mammografii v diagnostike raka molochnoy zhelezy [The role of contrastenhanced dual-energy spectral mammogra­ phy in the diagnosis of breast cancer]. Med. Vizual. 2023;27(4):81-91. (In Russ.). DOI

2. Associaciya onkologov Rossii, Rossijskoe obshhestvo klinicheskoj onkologii (RUSSCO). Klinicheskie rekomendacii: Rak molochnoj zhelezy' (C50, D05). ID: 379_4. M.: Min­ zdrav Rossii, 2023. [Association of Onco­ logists of Russia; Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO). Clinical guidelines: Breast cancer (C50, D05). ID: 379. Moscow: Ministry of Health of Russia, 2023]. URL (data obrashheniya: 19.04.2026). Electronic resource. (In Russ.).

3. Postanovlenie Pravitel`stva Rossijskoj Fede­ racii ot 28.12.2023 № 2353 «O Programme gosudarstvenny`x garantij besplatnogo oka­ zaniya grazhdanam medicinskoj pomoshhi na 2024 god i na planovy`j period 2025 i 2026 godov» [Russian Federation Gover­ nment Decree No. 2353 dated December 28, 2023 «On the Program of State Guarantees of Free Medical Care to Citizens for 2024 and for the Planning Period of 2025 and 2026»]. M.: Pravitel'stvo RF, 2023. URL (data obrashheniya: 19.04.2026). Electronic resource. (In Russ.).

4. Chyornaya A. V., Ulyanova R. Kh., Krivo­ rotko P. V., Artemyeva A. S., Bagnenko S. S., Zhiltsova E. K., Novikov S. N., Danilov V. V., Krzhivitsky P. I., Semiglazov V. F. Utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the diagnosis of multicentric breast cancer. Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2021;17(4):20-28. (In Russ.). DOI

5. ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Me­ dia. ACR Manual on Contrast Media [Inter­ net]. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology, 2024 [cited 2026 May 5]. URL Electronic resource.

6. Allemani C., Weir H. K., Carreira H., Harewood R., Spika D., Wang X. S., Bannon F., Ahn J. V., Johnson C. J., Bonaventure A., Marcos-Gragera R., Stiller C., Azevedo e Silva G., Chen W. Q., Ogunbiyi O. J., Rachet B., Soeberg M. J., You H., Matsuda T., BielskaLasota M., Storm H., Tucker T. C., Coleman M.P. CONCORD Working Group. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet. 2015;385(9972):977-1010. DOI

7. Amato F., Bicchierai G., Cirone D., Depretto C., Di Naro F., Vanzi E., Scaperrotta G., Bartolotta T. V., Miele V., Nori J. Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM). Radiol. Med. 2019;124(12):1229-1237. DOI

8. Berg W. A., Blume J. D., Cormack J. B., Mendelson E. B., Lehrer D., Böhm-Vélez M., Pisano E. D., Jong R. A., Evans W. P., Morton M. J., Mahoney M. C., Larsen L. H., Barr R. G., Farria D. M., Marques H. S., Boparai K. ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-63. DOI

9. Cheung Y. C., Lin Y. C., Wan Y. L., Yeow K. M., Huang P. C., Lo Y. F., Tsai H. P., Ueng S. H., Chang C. J. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blindreading analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2014;24(10): 2394-403. DOI

10. Covington M. F., Salmon S., Weaver B. D., Fajardo L. L. State-of-the-art for contrastenhanced mammography. BJR. 2024;97(1156): 695-704. URL (accessed: 20.04.2026). Elec­ tronic resource. DOI

11. Elezaby M., Li G., Bhargavan-Chatfield M., Burnside E. S., DeMartini W. B. ACR BIRADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database. Radiology. 2018;287(2):416- 422. DOI

12. Fallenberg E. M., Dromain C., Diekmann F., Renz D. M., Amer H., Ingold-Heppner B., Neumann A. U., Winzer K. J., Bick U., Hamm B., Engelken F. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography pro­ vide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast. Cancer. Res. Treat. 2014;146(2):371-81. DOI

13. Gelardi F., Ragaini E. M., Sollini M., Bernardi D., Chiti A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Re­ sonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(8):1890. DOI

14. Houben I. P., Vanwetswinkel S., Kalia V., Thywissen T., Nelemans P. J., Heuts E. M., Smidt M. L., Meyer-Baese A., Wildberger J. E., Lobbes M. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the evaluation of breast suspicious calcifications: diagnostic accuracy and impact on surgical management. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(9):1110-1117. DOI

15. Iotti V., Ragazzi M., Besutti G., Marchesi V., Ravaioli S., Falco G., Coiro S., Bisagni A., Gasparini E., Giorgi Rossi P., Vacondio R., Pattacini P. Accuracy and Reproducibility of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in the Assessment of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients with Calcifications in the Tumor Bed. Diagnostics (Basel). 2021;11(3):435. DOI

16. Lalji U. C., Jeukens C. R., Houben I., Nelemans P. J., van Engen R. E., van Wylick E., Beets-Tan R. G., Wildberger J. E., Paulis L. E., Lobbes M. B. Evaluation of lowenergy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to fullfield digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur. Radiol. 2015; 25(10):2813-20. DOI

17. Lin S. T., Li H. J., Li Y. Z., Chen Q. Q., Ye J. Y., Lin S., Cai S. Q., Sun J. G. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced mammo­ graphy for suspicious findings in dense breasts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2024;13(8):e7128. DOI

18. Liu J., Xiao R., Yin H. et al Meta-analysis and systematic review of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for the detection of breast cancer. BMJ Open. 2024;14:e069788. DOI

19. Moffa G., Galati F., Maroncelli R., Rizzo V., Cicciarelli F., Pasculli M., Pediconi F. Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhan­ ced Digital Mammography versus Conven­ tional Imaging in Women with Dense Breasts. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(15):2520. DOI

20. Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G. The PRISMA Group Preferred Repor­ ting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. DOI

21. Nicosia L., Battaglia O., Venturini M., Fon­ tana F., Minenna M., Pesenti A., Budascu D., Pesapane F., Bozzini A. C., Pizzamiglio M., Meneghetti L., Latronico A., Signorelli G., Mariano L., Cassano E. Contrast-enhanced mammography BI-RADS: a case-based ap­ proach to radiology reporting. Insights Imaging. 2024;15(1):37. DOI

22. Nissan N., Sung J. S. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Advances, Challenges, and Case-Based Insights. Korean. J. Radiol. 2025; 26(11):1022-1031. DOI

23. Shea B. J., Reeves B. C., Wells G., Thuku M., Hamel C., Moran J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. DOI

24. Whiting P. F., Rutjes A. W., Westwood M. E., Mallett S., Deeks J. J., Reitsma J. B., Leef­ lang M. M., Sterne J. A., Bossuyt P. M. QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011; 155(8):529-36. DOI