Abstract
This chapter covers the physics theory underlying iodine contrast enhanced digital mammography. We cover two methods of imaging iodine, baseline subtraction and dual energy subtraction. The chapter discusses the x-ray absorption properties of iodine, and imaging x-ray filters and x-ray tube kilovoltages needed for the dual energy subtraction method, as well as typical radiation doses for the procedure. The imaging workflow and time sequence of the procedure are shown. The known clinical performance of iodine breast imaging is briefly reviewed, and the procedure is compared to the common gadolinium breast MRI method. The differences between 2D and 3D iodinated contrast mammography are discussed. Finally, example images are shown that illustrate the subtraction process, and imaging in dense breasts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228(3):842–50.
Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.
Figure courtesy of John M Lewin, MD. The Women’s Imaging Center, 3773 Cherry Ck N Dr, Suite 101, Denver CO 80209, john.lewin@thewomensimagingcenter.net.
Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, et al. 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.
See, for example. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.
Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P, et al. Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR contrast media safety committee guidelines. Contrast media safety committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2527–41.
Lewis TC, Pizzitola VJ, Giurescu ME, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: a single-institution experience of the first 208 cases. Breast J. 2017;23(1):67–76.
Chou CP, Lewin JM, Chiang CL, et al. Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis—comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(12):2501–8.
Patel BK, Lobbes MBI, Lewin J. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018;39(1):70–9.
Phillips J, Miller MM, Mehta TS, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes. Clin Imaging. 2017;42:193–7.
McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275(3):772–82.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, A.P. (2018). Physics and Practical Considerations of CEDM. In: Nori, J., Kaur, M. (eds) Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94552-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94553-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)