Advertisement

An Overview of the Literature on CEDM

  • Diego De Benedetto
  • Chiara Bellini
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Sensitivity Specificity PPV Problem-solving Dual energy LE CEDM Average glandular dose (AGD) MRI FFDM Microcalcifications Architectural distortions (AD) 

References

  1. 1.
    Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel BK, Lobbes MB, Lewin J. Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 2018;39:70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Covington MF, et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR. 2018;210:292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pataky R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MRI of breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patel BK, et al. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR. 2017;208:W231–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego De Benedetto
    • 1
  • Chiara Bellini
    • 1
  1. 1.Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of RadiologyAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria CareggiFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations