Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls and Limitations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)

  • 434 Accesses

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) of the breast is evolving into an important adjunctive tool in breast imaging with increasing indications for its use. However, it does come with its share of limitations. Because it involves the use of contrast media, the factors related to contrast examinations such as allergic reactions and patients contraindicated to contrast media need to be considered prior to the examination. Another important consideration includes radiation exposure; therefore a proper protocol to ensure that the appropriate patients are being studied is necessary.

As with other types of breast imaging technologies, there are a number of technical pitfalls that can potentially limit interpretation of the images in CEDM. These include limited assessment of the posterior extent of masses, particularly chest wall invasion, and also the inability to evaluate axillary lymphadenopathy. Most important, there is still a lack of technology to biopsy abnormal areas of enhancement.

Similar to MRI, false-negative results may be seen with low-grade tumours, where there may be of minimal enhancement with abrupt washout. False-positive enhancement of benign lesions is also commonly seen. Breast prosthesis is considered a contraindication in CEDM due to the significant artefacts seen associated with it in the recombined images.

In this chapter, we will focus on the pitfalls and limitations of CEDM based on our clinical experience and the current literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Hughes MC, Zheng J, Moskowitz C, Morris EA. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(8):1350–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Travesio Aja MM, Rodríguez Rodríguez M, Alayón Hernández S, Vega Benítez V, Luzardo OP. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography. Radiologia. 2014;56(5):390–9.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Badr S, Laurent N, Régis C, Boulanger L, Lemaille S, Poncelet E. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(3):245–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mammography Quality Standards Act, Quality standards. 21 CFR §900.12(e)(5)(vi).

    Google Scholar 

  5. EUREF European Guidelines −EUREF. European Reference Organisation for quality assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services, European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, fourth edition supplement. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  6. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, AAPM position statement on radiation risks from medical imaging procedures. Policy Number PP25-A; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Houben IPL, Van de Voorde P, Jeukens CRLPN, Wildberger JE, Kooreman LF, Smidt ML, Lobbes MBI. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:31–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jeukens CR, Lalji UC, Meijer E, Bakija B, Theunissen R, Wildberger JE, Lobbes MB. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(10):659–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, Balleyguier C. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):565–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, Ferrara J, Morris EA. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266(3):743–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):362–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz DM, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, Neumann AU, Winzer KJ, Bick U, Hamm B, Engelken F. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tzamicha E, Yakoumakis E, Tsalafoutas IA, Dimitriadis A, Georgiou E, Tsapaki V, Chalazonitis A. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom. Phys Med. 2015;31(7):785–91.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dromain C, Canale S, Saab-Puong S, Carton AK, Muller S, Fallenberg EM. Optimization of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography depending on clinical indication. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014;1(3):033506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lalji UC, Jeukens CR, Houben I, Nelemans PJ, van Engen RE, van Wylick E, Beets-Tan RG, Wildberger JE, Paulis LE, Lobbes MB. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(10):2813–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Daniaux M, De Zordo T, Santner W, Amort B, Koppelstätter F, Jaschke W, Dromain C, Oberaigner W, Hubalek M, Marth C. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(4):739–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhimani C, Matta D, Roth RG, Liao L, Tinney E, Brill K, Germaine P. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(1):84–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. American College of Radiology Commitee on drugs and contrast media. ACR Manual on contrast media, Version 10.3. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  20. ESUR guidelines. http://www.esur.org/esur-guidelines/.

  21. Thibault F, Balleyguier C, Tardivon A, Dromain C. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI? Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(Suppl 1):S162–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM, Jong RA, Koomen M, Hendrick RE, Tardivon A, Toledano A. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(3):R94.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology. 1991;179(1):143–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz DM, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, Neumann AU, Winzer KJ, Bick U, Hamm B, Engelken F. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

    Cecilia Boeri, Valeria Selvi & Carlotta Checcucci

Authors
  1. Cecilia Boeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valeria Selvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlotta Checcucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia Boeri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

    Jacopo Nori

  2. Department of Radiology, Kuala Lumpur Hospital, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Maninderpal Kaur

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boeri, C., Selvi, V., Checcucci, C. (2018). Pitfalls and Limitations. In: Nori, J., Kaur, M. (eds) Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94552-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94553-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation