Skip to main content

An Overview of the Literature on CEDM

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

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.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
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. 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 

  2. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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 

  7. 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 

  8. 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 

  9. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patel BK, Lobbes MB, Lewin J. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39:70–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Covington MF, et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR. 2018;210:292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pataky R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MRI of breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Patel BK, et al. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR. 2017;208:W231–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics