Abstract
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an imaging tool that is increasingly being used to evaluate for breast cancer. It is important for breast groups to understand how this system works and its impact on clinical workflow prior to implementation to ensure a smooth transition. In this chapter, we will review the equipment, physical space, and data storage requirements; the most common indications for use and the patient selection process; how CEM images are acquired and the steps involved in planning and performing the exam; the necessary staff training; and lastly strategies for marketing your new CEM system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Lalji UC, Jeukens CR, Houben I, Nelemans PJ, van Engen RE, van Wylick E, et al. 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.
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.
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.
Fallenberg EM, Schmitzberger FF, Amer H, Ingold-Heppner B, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2752–64.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, 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(3):743–51.
Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, Signori A, Sormani MP, Valdora F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13–9.
Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, Andrews-Tang D, Roth A, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology. 2017;285(2):389–400.
GE Healthcare 510(k) premarket notification submission. [Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/k103485.pdf]. Accessed February 19, 2019.
Phillips J, Steinkeler J, Talati K, Brook A, Dialani V, Fishman M, et al. Workflow considerations for incorporation of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography into a breast imaging practice. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(6):881–5.
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.
Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, van Roozendaal L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.
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.
Phillips J, Miller MM, Mehta TS, Fein-Zachary V, Nathanson A, Hori W, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lobbes MB, Lalji UC, Nelemans PJ, Houben I, Smidt ML, Heuts E, 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.
Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–W7.
American College of Radiology, ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media ACR manual on contrast media, version 10.3. 2018. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf
Houben IPL, van Berlo CJLY, Bekers O, Nijssen EC, Lobbes MBI, Wildberger JE. Assessing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy using a finger stick analysis in recalls from breast screening: the CINFIBS explorative study. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2017;2017:5670384.
Snaith B, Harris MA, Shinkins B, Jordaan M, Messenger M, Lewington A. Point-of-care creatinine testing for kidney function measurement prior to contrast-enhanced diagnostic imaging: evaluation of the performance of three systems for clinical utility. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(8):1269–76.
Patel BK, Garza SA, Eversman S, Lopez-Alvarez Y, Kosiorek H, Pockaj BA. Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound. Clin Imaging. 2017;46:78–84.
Pfeifer K, Staib L, Arango J, Kirsch J, Arici M, Kappus L, et al. High-fidelity contrast reaction simulation training: performance comparison of faculty, fellows, and residents. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(1):81–7.
Wang CL, Chinnugounder S, Hippe DS, Zaidi S, O’Malley RB, Bhargava P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of hands-on versus computer simulation-based training for contrast media reactions and teamwork skills. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(1):103–10.e3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Phillips, J., Mehta, T.S. (2019). Setting Up a CEM Program. In: Lobbes, M., Jochelson, M. (eds) Contrast-Enhanced Mammography . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11063-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11063-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11062-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11063-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)