Contrast‐enhanced Digital Mammography: A Single‐Institution Experience of the First 208 Cases

Contrast‐enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is the only imaging modality that provides both (a) a high‐resolution, low‐energy image comparable to that of digital mammography and (b) a contrast‐enhanced image similar to that of magnetic resonance imaging. We report the initial 208 CEDM examinations performed for various clinical indications and provide illustrative case examples. Given its success in recent studies and our experience of CEDM primarily as a diagnostic adjunct, CEDM can potentially improve breast cancer detection by combining the low‐cost conclusions of screening mammography with the high sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging.

[1]  J. Ryś,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Comparison with Conventional Mammography and Histopathology in 152 Women , 2014, Korean journal of radiology.

[2]  I. Kandarakis,et al.  Calcification Detection Optimization in Dual Energy Mammography: Influence of the X-Ray Spectra , 2014 .

[3]  Linda Moy,et al.  The Role of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Screening Breast MRI in Populations at Increased Risk for Breast Cancer , 2014, Women's health.

[4]  Ellen Warner,et al.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination , 2004, JAMA.

[5]  M. Krohn,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size , 2013, European Radiology.

[6]  D Krebs,et al.  Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. , 2000, Radiology.

[7]  Serge Muller,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results , 2011, European Radiology.

[8]  Serge Muller,et al.  Digital Mammography Using Iodine-Based Contrast Media: Initial Clinical Experience With Dynamic Contrast Medium Enhancement , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[9]  C. Catalano,et al.  Radial Scars of the Breast: Contrast‐enhanced Magnetic Resonance Mammography Appearance , 2005, The breast journal.

[10]  John M Lewin,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. , 2003, Radiology.

[11]  Corinne Balleyguier,et al.  Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography , 2006 .

[12]  C. Zuiani,et al.  High-risk breast lesions at imaging-guided needle biopsy: usefulness of MRI for treatment decision. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  M. O’Connor,et al.  Molecular breast imaging: use of a dual-head dedicated gamma camera to detect small breast tumors. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Andrew H. S. Lee,et al.  Why is carcinoma of the breast more frequent in the upper outer quadrant? A case series based on needle core biopsy diagnoses. , 2005, Breast.

[15]  Bernd Hamm,et al.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  R. Warren,et al.  Initial experiences of using an automated volumetric measure of breast density: the standard mammogram form. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  Ellen Warner,et al.  The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer , 2008, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[18]  C. Régis,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. , 2014, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[19]  Janice S Sung,et al.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. , 2013, Radiology.

[20]  Robert B. Jaffe.  Performance of Screening Mammography Among Women With and Without a First-Degree Relative With Breast Cancer , 2001 .

[21]  M. O’Connor,et al.  Quantification of lesion size, depth, and uptake using a dual-head molecular breast imaging system. , 2008, Medical physics.

[22]  A. Degnim,et al.  Scientific Impact Recognition Award: Molecular breast imaging: a review of the Mayo Clinic experience. , 2008, American journal of surgery.

[23]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  A R Padhani,et al.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS) , 2005, The Lancet.

[25]  Anna I. Holbrook,et al.  Alternative screening for women with dense breasts: breast-specific gamma imaging (molecular breast imaging). , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  W. Odling-Smee,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer , 1985, The Lancet.

[27]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[28]  Robert W. Maxwell,et al.  Journal club: molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.