Pitfalls and Limitations

  • Cecilia BoeriEmail author
  • Valeria Selvi
  • Carlotta Checcucci


Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) of the breast is evolving into an important adjunctive tool in breast imaging with increasing indications for its use. However, it does come with its share of limitations. Because it involves the use of contrast media, the factors related to contrast examinations such as allergic reactions and patients contraindicated to contrast media need to be considered prior to the examination. Another important consideration includes radiation exposure; therefore a proper protocol to ensure that the appropriate patients are being studied is necessary.

As with other types of breast imaging technologies, there are a number of technical pitfalls that can potentially limit interpretation of the images in CEDM. These include limited assessment of the posterior extent of masses, particularly chest wall invasion, and also the inability to evaluate axillary lymphadenopathy. Most important, there is still a lack of technology to biopsy abnormal areas of enhancement.

Similar to MRI, false-negative results may be seen with low-grade tumours, where there may be of minimal enhancement with abrupt washout. False-positive enhancement of benign lesions is also commonly seen. Breast prosthesis is considered a contraindication in CEDM due to the significant artefacts seen associated with it in the recombined images.

In this chapter, we will focus on the pitfalls and limitations of CEDM based on our clinical experience and the current literature.


  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Travesio Aja MM, Rodríguez Rodríguez M, Alayón Hernández S, Vega Benítez V, Luzardo OP. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography. Radiologia. 2014;56(5):390–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Badr S, Laurent N, Régis C, Boulanger L, Lemaille S, Poncelet E. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(3):245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mammography Quality Standards Act, Quality standards. 21 CFR §900.12(e)(5)(vi).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EUREF European Guidelines −EUREF. European Reference Organisation for quality assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services, European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, fourth edition supplement. 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Association of Physicists in Medicine, AAPM position statement on radiation risks from medical imaging procedures. Policy Number PP25-A; 2011.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Houben IPL, Van de Voorde P, Jeukens CRLPN, Wildberger JE, Kooreman LF, Smidt ML, Lobbes MBI. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeukens CR, Lalji UC, Meijer E, Bakija B, Theunissen R, Wildberger JE, Lobbes MB. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol. 2014;49(10):659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, Balleyguier C. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):565–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tzamicha E, Yakoumakis E, Tsalafoutas IA, Dimitriadis A, Georgiou E, Tsapaki V, Chalazonitis A. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom. Phys Med. 2015;31(7):785–91.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dromain C, Canale S, Saab-Puong S, Carton AK, Muller S, Fallenberg EM. Optimization of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography depending on clinical indication. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2014;1(3):033506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Daniaux M, De Zordo T, Santner W, Amort B, Koppelstätter F, Jaschke W, Dromain C, Oberaigner W, Hubalek M, Marth C. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(4):739–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bhimani C, Matta D, Roth RG, Liao L, Tinney E, Brill K, Germaine P. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(1):84–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    American College of Radiology Commitee on drugs and contrast media. ACR Manual on contrast media, Version 10.3. 2017.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Thibault F, Balleyguier C, Tardivon A, Dromain C. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI? Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(Suppl 1):S162–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM, Jong RA, Koomen M, Hendrick RE, Tardivon A, Toledano A. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(3):R94.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu X, Barnes GT, Tucker DM. Spectral dependence of glandular tissue dose in screen-film mammography. Radiology. 1991;179(1):143–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Boeri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valeria Selvi
    • 1
  • Carlotta Checcucci
    • 1
  1. 1.Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of RadiologyAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria CareggiFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations