Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Contrast-enhanced mammography increases cancer detection by 9.3 per 1,000 compared to low-energy mammographyContrast-enhanced mammography finds more breast cancers than standard mammography

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that CEM increases cancer detection by 9.3 per 1,000 compared to low-energy mammography.

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in screening and surveillance populations for breast cancer, including those with a personal history of the disease. The study compares CEM against both low-energy mammography and breast MRI to assess cancer detection rates.

The primary finding indicates that CEM significantly increases cancer detection compared to low-energy mammography, with a risk difference of 9.3 per 1,000 women (95% CI, 4.0-14.6; P < 0.01). When comparing CEM to breast MRI in selected screening contexts, the results were reported as broadly comparable.

The authors note significant limitations regarding the comparison between CEM and MRI, citing heterogeneity and a limited number of cancer events across studies. These factors, along with heterogeneous study designs, preclude definitive comparative conclusions between CEM and MRI at this time.

These findings may inform clinical implementation and the design of prospective screening trials for breast cancer patients. While the increase in detection over low-energy mammography is statistically significant, the evidence base for its superiority or equivalence to MRI remains uncertain due to study limitations.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses a gap in imaging modalities for breast cancer screening and surveillance. It provides specific data on how contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) performs against low-energy mammography by showing an increase of 9.3 per 1,000 cancers detected. While it does not directly relate to the previously covered findings regarding mindfulness-based stress reduction, financial toxicity, microRNA biomarkers, pyrotinib-based regimens, or discordant treatment responses in stage IV patients, it contributes to the broader landscape of breast cancer detection and management.

When it comes to breast cancer screening, every extra cancer found early can save a life. A new analysis of existing studies suggests that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), a type of mammogram that uses a contrast dye to highlight suspicious areas, may find more cancers than the standard low-energy mammogram.

Researchers pooled data from multiple studies and found that CEM detected 9.3 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened compared with low-energy mammography. That's a meaningful difference, though the exact number varied across studies. The analysis also looked at how CEM compares with breast MRI, another powerful imaging tool. In selected screening situations, CEM performed broadly similarly to MRI, but the evidence is less certain.

The findings come from a meta-analysis, which combines results from several studies to get a clearer picture. However, the studies were quite different from each other, and the number of cancer cases was limited, especially for the CEM versus MRI comparison. So while the results are promising, they are not the final word.

For women with dense breasts or a personal history of breast cancer, CEM might offer a useful middle ground between standard mammography and MRI. But more research is needed to confirm these findings and to understand which women benefit most. If you're considering your screening options, talk to your doctor about what's right for you.

What this means for you:
Contrast-enhanced mammography may find more breast cancers than standard mammography, but more research is needed.

Common questions

What is contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)?

Contrast-enhanced mammography is a type of mammogram that uses a contrast dye injected into a vein. The dye helps highlight areas of increased blood flow, which can be a sign of cancer. It's similar to a standard mammogram but provides more detailed images.

How does CEM compare to standard mammography?

In this analysis, CEM detected 9.3 more cancers per 1,000 women screened compared to standard low-energy mammography. That means for every 1,000 women, CEM found about 9 more cancers. However, this is based on a meta-analysis of studies, and individual results may vary.

Is CEM as good as MRI for breast cancer detection?

In selected screening contexts, CEM performed broadly similarly to breast MRI. However, the studies were limited and varied, so researchers cannot make a definitive conclusion. More research is needed to directly compare CEM and MRI in different groups of women.

Who might benefit from CEM?

CEM might be useful for women who need additional screening, such as those with dense breasts or a personal history of breast cancer. However, this analysis did not specify which groups benefit most. Talk to your doctor about whether CEM is an option for you.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pathway-specific cancer detection and summarise screening outcomes (recall/biopsy/PPV3) for contrast-enhanced mammography when reported, and to compare them with those for low-energy mammography and breast MRI. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 2011, through August 31, 2025, for studies evaluating contrast-enhanced mammography in screening or surveillance populations (including supplemental/add-on screening and surveillance of patients with a personal history of breast cancer). Diagnostic, recall, and problem-solving studies were excluded. Screening pathways were categorized as: (1) direct comparison with low-energy mammography, (2) direct comparison with MRI, and (3) add-on CEM to mammography-based screening. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed when designs were comparable. Comparisons between CEM and MRI were summarized qualitatively because of heterogeneity and limited cancer events across studies. Single-arm screening studies were summarized descriptively. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria for qualitative synthesis; seven screening and surveillance studies contributed to the meta-analysis. Compared with low-energy mammography, CEM detected 9.3 additional cancers per 1,000 women screened (risk difference [RD], +9.3 per 1,000; 95% CI, 4.0-14.6; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%). Three studies directly compared CEM with MRI in screening settings and were summarized qualitatively because of heterogeneity and limited cancer events. CONCLUSION: In screening and surveillance populations, contrast-enhanced mammography increases cancer detection compared with low-energy mammography. Evidence from available comparative studies suggests that cancer detection with CEM may be broadly comparable to MRI in selected screening contexts; however, the limited number of studies and heterogeneous designs preclude definitive comparative conclusions. These pathway-specific estimates may inform clinical implementation and the design of prospective screening trials.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.