Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a new breast imaging technique. The role of CEDM in the surgical management of breast cancer has not yet been characterized.

Methods

A retrospective review of prospective breast surgery and breast imaging databases for patients who underwent CEDM and had breast cancer surgery.

Results

A total of 351 patients had CEDM; 128 had malignant lesions, and 101 of these underwent surgery with 105 malignancies identified. The mean age was 62 years (range 25–85 years). The histology was 65 % invasive ductal carcinoma, 16 % invasive lobular carcinoma, 11 % ductal carcinoma-in situ, 3 % mixed invasive ductal carcinoma/invasive lobular carcinoma, and 5 % other histologies. After excluding two lesions that had been removed before the examination, CEDM identified 98 % (n = 101/103) of the index lesions. The two lesions not identified were Paget disease only and a parasternal lesion too medial to include in the field of view. CEDM led to additional biopsies in 12 % (n = 12) of patients. Of these, 67 % (n = 8) proved to be invasive carcinoma and 33 % (n = 4) were benign. CEDM changed surgical management in 20 % (n = 20) of cancer patients with a 4 % (n = 4) rate of conversion to mastectomy.

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing surgical therapy for breast cancer, CEDM was highly sensitive, had size measurements that correlated well with histologic size, and produced a relatively low rate of false-positive additional biopsy findings. CEDM appears to be promising as an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging in the surgical planning of these patients.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:256–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jochelson M. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52:609–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, Remi J, Delaloge S. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;84:2501–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg. 2013;257:249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mori M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Suzuki S, et al. 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. (In press).

  8. Luczynska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Dyczek S, Blecharz P, Rys J, Reinfuss M. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: comparison with conventional mammography and histopathology in 152 women. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15:689–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:565–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2011;78:112–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, 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. Radiology. 2013;266:743–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariam Ali-Mucheru MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali-Mucheru, M., Pockaj, B., Patel, B. et al. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23 (Suppl 5), 649–655 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7

Keywords

Navigation