Abstract
Conducting a literature review on contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is not easy due to the variety of abbreviations and acronyms referring to this procedure and due to the limited articles available in international biomedical databases (less than 100 to date). Among the most notable limitations of CEDM studies are their heterogeneity and sampling design, as well as their small sample population sizes. We focused on the dual-energy technique, as the temporal subtraction technique has become obsolete. The majority of studies conducted were concerned with assessing sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV); the key focus of many studies was comparison among CEDM, full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in terms of accuracy and diagnostic performance in breast imaging. CEDM showed an increase in diagnostic performance over FFDM alone, was comparable to MRI in terms of sensitivity and NPV and had a higher specificity and higher PPV. In addition, CEDM was examined as an additional imaging tool for problem-solving associated with suspicious lesions detected by conventional imaging techniques, such as microcalcifications, architectural distortions and the evaluation of dense breasts, with very promising results. Finally, we analysed the average glandular dose (AGD), and all results obtained were below the limits set by the regulations of the Mammography Quality Standards Act, thus positioning CEDM as a new valuable diagnostic technique in breast imaging.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.
Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, van Roozendaal L, Smidt ML, Heuts E, Wildberger JE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.
Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R, Gommers S, van Goethem M, Vanwetswinkel S, Pijnappel R, Steeman R, Frotscher C, Mok W, Nelemans P, Smidt ML, Beets-Tan RG, Wildberger JE, Lobbes MB. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4371–9.
Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, Signori A, Sormani MP, Valdora F, Calabrese M, Houssami N. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008. Epub 2016 May 7.
Libera A, Altman DG, Tetzla J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. PRISMA Statement per il reporting di revisioni sistematiche e meta-analisi degli studi che valutano gli interventi sanitari: spiegazione ed elaborazione. Evidence. 2015;7(6):e1000115.
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.
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.
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.
Tennant SL, James JJ, Cornford EJ, Chen Y, Burrell HC, Hamilton LJ, Girio-Fragkoulakis C. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves diagnostic accuracy in the symptomatic setting. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(11):1148–55.
Sardanelli F, Fallenberg EM, Clauser P, Trimboli RM, Camps-Herrero J, Helbich TH, Forrai G, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition. Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(1):11–8.
Cheung YC, Tsai HP, Lo YF, Ueng SH, Huang PC, Chen SC. Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(4):1082–9.
Cheung YC, Juan YH, Lin YC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, Ueng SH, Chen SC. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: enhancement analysis on BI-RADS 4 non-mass microcalcifications in screened women. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162740.
Patel BK, Naylor ME, Kosiorek HE, Lopez-Alvarez YM, Miller AM, Pizzitola VJ, Pockaj BA. Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as an adjunct for tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion. Clin Imaging. 2017;46:44–52.
Mori M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Suzuki S, Daniels MI, Watanabe C, Hirose M, Nakamura S. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts. Breast Cancer. 2017;24(1):104–10.
Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Yeow KM, Huang PC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, Ueng SH, Chang CJ. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2394–403.
Tardivel AM, Balleyguier C, Dunant A, Delaloge S, Mazouni C, Mathieu MC, Dromain C. Added value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in Postscreening assessment. Breast J. 2016;22(5):520–8.
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.
Fallenberg EM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI—clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2752–64.
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.
Łuczyńska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E, Dyczek S, Ryś J, Herman K, Blecharz P, Jakubowi J. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1358–67.
Li L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(2):113–23.
Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Engelken F, Krohn M, Singh JM, Ingold-Heppner B, Winzer KJ, Bick U, Renz DM. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):256–64.
Lobbes MBI, et al. The quality of tumor size assessment by contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and the benefit of additional breast MRI. J Cancer. 2015;6(2):144–50.
Patel BK, Lobbes MB, Lewin J. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39:70–9.
ElSaid NAE, Mahmoud HGM, Salama A, et al. Role of contrast enhanced spectral mammography in predicting pathological response of locally advanced breast cancer post neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2017;48(2):519–27.
Barra FR, et al. Accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for estimating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a feasibility study. Radiol Bras. 2017;50(4):224–30.
Iotti V, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19:106.
Covington MF, et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR. 2018;210:292–300.
Pataky R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MRI of breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:339.
Patel BK, et al. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR. 2017;208:W231–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
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
De Benedetto, D., Bellini, C. (2018). An Overview of the Literature on CEDM. In: Nori, J., Kaur, M. (eds) Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94552-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94553-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)