Implementation of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography in Clinical Practice

  • Maninderpal Kaur
  • Claudia Lucia Piccolo
  • Shantini Arasaratnam


The principle behind CEDM is similar to that of breast magnetic resonance imaging as they both assess tumour neoangiogenesis; therefore, with some exceptions, most of the indications for breast MRI apply to CEDM.

CEDM is increasingly being adopted in breast-imaging centres, largely due to early clinical studies demonstrating this technology’s ability to provide both anatomic and functional information of breast parenchyma similar to MRI but at a lower cost and shorter duration of examination. Because such capability can be an added feature to the newer generation mammogram machines, we expect that the use of CEDM will increase. However, there is limited guidance regarding how to best implement this technology, and there are no standard guidelines for the clinical use of CEDM. In this chapter, we discuss the implementation of CEDM into the clinical practice setting, with a review of the available literature and perspectives from our large tertiary academic hospital.


Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Full-field Digital Mammography (FFDM) Careggi University Hospital Average Glandular Dose 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  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.
    Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al. Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition). Autophagy. 2016;12(1):1–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Covington MF, Pizzitola VJ, Lorans R, Pockaj BA, Northfelt DW, Appleton CM, et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(2):292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–W7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hobbs MM, Taylor DB, Buzynski S, Peake RE. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59(3):300–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katrina R, Beckett AKM, Langer JM. Safe use of contrast media: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiographics. 2015;35(6):1738–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jeukens CR, Lalji UC, Meijer E, Bakija B, Theunissen R, Wildberger JE, et al. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Investig Radiol. 2014;49(10):659–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):565–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Yakoumakis E, Tzamicha E, Dimitriadis A, Georgiou E, Tsapaki V, Chalazonitis A. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: patient radiation dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;165(1–4):369–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R, Gommers S, van Goethem M, Vanwetswinkel S, et al. 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
  12. 12.
    Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Caoili EM, Wang G, Francis IR. Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Rico D, Muller S, Rick A, et al. Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys. 2002;29(10):2419–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lobbes MB, Smidt ML, Houwers J, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Wildberger JE. Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(9):935–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mori M, Akashi-Tanaka S, Suzuki S, Daniels MI, Watanabe C, Hirose M, 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. 2017;24(1):104–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Yeow KM, Huang PC, Lo YF, et al. 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
  18. 18.
    Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Engelken F, Krohn M, Singh JM, 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(1):256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tennant SL, James JJ, Cornford EJ, Chen Y, Burrell HC, Hamilton LJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves diagnostic accuracy in the symptomatic setting. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(11):1148–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, Soo MS, Bentley RC, Yu D, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(5):1275–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iotti V, Ravaioli S, Vacondio R, Coriani C, Caffarri S, Sghedoni R, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barra FR, de Souza FF, Camelo R, Ribeiro ACO, Farage L. 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
  23. 23.
    Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Hughes MC, Zheng J, 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
  24. 24.
    Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Renz DM, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, et al. 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
  25. 25.
    Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD, Hughes M, Gibbons GF, Rahbar K, et al. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2017;97:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, van Zee KJ, Abramson AF, Liberman L. MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology. 1997;205(2):437–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Olson JA Jr, Morris EA, Van Zee KJ, Linehan DC, Borgen PI. Magnetic resonance imaging facilitates breast conservation for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7(6):411–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lieberman S, Sella T, Maly B, Sosna J, Uziely B, Sklair-Levy M. Breast magnetic resonance imaging characteristics in women with occult primary breast carcinoma. Isr Med Assoc J. 2008;10(6):448–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ali-Mucheru M, Pockaj B, Patel B, Pizzitola V, Wasif N, Stucky CC, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(Suppl 5):649–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maninderpal Kaur
    • 1
  • Claudia Lucia Piccolo
    • 2
  • Shantini Arasaratnam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyKuala Lumpur HospitalKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Medicine and Health ScienceUniversity of MoliseCampobassoItaly

Personalised recommendations