Physics and Practical Considerations of CEDM

  • Andrew P. SmithEmail author


This chapter covers the physics theory underlying iodine contrast enhanced digital mammography. We cover two methods of imaging iodine, baseline subtraction and dual energy subtraction. The chapter discusses the x-ray absorption properties of iodine, and imaging x-ray filters and x-ray tube kilovoltages needed for the dual energy subtraction method, as well as typical radiation doses for the procedure. The imaging workflow and time sequence of the procedure are shown. The known clinical performance of iodine breast imaging is briefly reviewed, and the procedure is compared to the common gadolinium breast MRI method. The differences between 2D and 3D iodinated contrast mammography are discussed. Finally, example images are shown that illustrate the subtraction process, and imaging in dense breasts.


  1. 1.
    Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228(3):842–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Figure courtesy of John M Lewin, MD. The Women’s Imaging Center, 3773 Cherry Ck N Dr, Suite 101, Denver CO 80209, Scholar
  4. 4.
    Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, et al. 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
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P, et al. Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR contrast media safety committee guidelines. Contrast media safety committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2527–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewis TC, Pizzitola VJ, Giurescu ME, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: a single-institution experience of the first 208 cases. Breast J. 2017;23(1):67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(12):2501–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel BK, Lobbes MBI, Lewin J. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018;39(1):70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phillips J, Miller MM, Mehta TS, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes. Clin Imaging. 2017;42:193–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;275(3):772–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Image Research, Breast and Skeletal HealthHologic, Inc.MarlboroughUSA

Personalised recommendations