Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know

Lidewij M F H Neeter, H P J Frank Raat, Rodrigo Alcantara, Quirien Robbe, Marjolein L Smidt, Joachim E Wildberger, Marc B I Lobbes, Lidewij M F H Neeter, H P J Frank Raat, Rodrigo Alcantara, Quirien Robbe, Marjolein L Smidt, Joachim E Wildberger, Marc B I Lobbes

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a combination of standard mammography and iodinated contrast material administration. During the last decade, CEM has found its place in breast imaging protocols: after i.v. administration of iodinated contrast material, low-energy and high-energy images are retrieved in one acquisition using a dual-energy technique, and a recombined image is constructed enabling visualisation of areas of contrast uptake. The increased incorporation of CEM into everyday clinical practice is reflected in the installation of dedicated equipment worldwide, the (commercial) availability of systems from different vendors, the number of CEM examinations performed, and the number of scientific articles published on the subject. It follows that ever more radiologists will be confronted with this technique, and thus be required to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field. Most importantly, radiologists must have sufficient knowledge on how to interpret CEM images and be acquainted with common artefacts and pitfalls. This comprehensive review provides a practical overview of CEM technique, including CEM-guided biopsy; reading, interpretation and structured reporting of CEM images, including the accompanying learning curve, CEM artefacts and interpretation pitfalls; indications for CEM; disadvantages of CEM; and future developments.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest: RA received institutional grant and consulting fee from GE Healthcare. JW received institutional grants and speaker’s fees from AGFA, Bayer Healthcare, Bard Medical, GE Healthcare, Optimed, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens Healthineers. ML received several research grant and speaker’s fees from GE Healthcare, Hologic, Bayer, and Guerbet. The other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

© 2021 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Principle of iodine-based contrast enhancement. Mass attenuation coefficients of fatty tissue, glandular tissue, and iodine are shown. The iodine curve shows a steep elevation in attenuation at 33.2 keV, which is the k-edge of iodine. Differences in attenuation between breast tissue and iodinated contrast material are larger beyond the k-edge of iodine. Thus in high energy images (44–49 kVp), the differences in attenuation are larger than in low-energy images (26–30 kVp). Image processing of low- and high-energy images subsequently results in recombined images, showing contrast enhancement overlay.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Contrast-enhanced mammographic images in a 67-year-old female recalled from the breast cancer screening program because of a new, spiculated mass in the right breast. A-D. Low energy images. E-H. Recombined images. Images were acquired of the right and left breast in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. The mass in the right breast is visible on low-energy images in both CC and MLO views (arrows in A and C). The recombined images of the right breast show enhancement of the lesion in both CC and MLO views (arrows in E and G). Histopathological results showed an invasive breast cancer of no special type, Grade 2, size 1.4 cm.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Diagram of image acquisition for contrast-enhanced mammography. The horizontal arrow represents the time window of 10 min in which a full (at least four views) contrast-enhanced mammography examination must be performed in order to be considered of diagnostic value. The iodine-based contrast agent is administered at time point zero (small vertical arrow), 2 min prior to the acquisition of the first view. Per view, one low energy and one high energy image are acquired within one compression (larger vertical arrows). The order of views may differ. After image processing, low energy and recombined images are retrieved for clinical assessment.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Enhancing fibroadenoma. A,B. Contrast-enhanced mammographic of right breast in mediolateral oblique view in a 63-year-old female recalled from screening because of a new ill-defined and partly obscured mass. A. Low-energy image showing the suspect mass (arrow in A). B. Corresponding recombined image in which the suspect lesion is showing enhancement (arrow in B). The lines visible in the caudal part of the breast (circle) are the result of slight motion between the low- and high-energy image acquisition, the ripple artefact. Histopathological results showed a classic fibroadenoma.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Contrast-enhanced mammographic images in a 55-year-old female recalled from screening because of a new mass in the left breast. A. Low-energy image in mediolateral oblique view shows an ill-defined round mass (arrow in A). B. Corresponding recombined image. At the site of the suspect lesion a subtle ‘eclipse sign’ is visible, implicating a cyst (arrow in B). No screen-detected interval breast cancer has been reported in the 18-month follow-up period. The ripple artefact is also visible on the recombined image (circle).
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Contrast-enhanced mammographic images in craniocaudal view in a 63-year-old female. A. Low-energy image of the right breast. B. The rim artefact is shown in the recombined image (small arrows). In addition, the skin line enhancement artefact is visible in the anteromedial part of the breast (larger arrow). No suspicious findings were reported.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
CEM-guided biopsy in a 61-year-old patient with palpable lesion in right breast (IDC, not shown) and additional contralateral (left breast) finding on diagnostic CEM. A,B. Low-energy (LE) and recombined image (RE) of left breast in craniocaudal view. There is a 6 mm mass enhancement at 12 o’clock, with no ultrasound correlation and not enough references on 2D/3D in order to favour a conventional mammographic-guided biopsy. C-E. The procedure of CEM-guided biopsy is similar to a standard stereotactic biopsy (one scout and a pair of angled stereotactic images) with the additional step of contrast media injection 2 min before compression and first imaging. Like a routine CEM, each acquisition is composed of one low-energy (LE) and one high-energy (HE) exposure. The inclusion of the enhancing lesion is confirmed with a recombined scout view (0°), followed by the two angled views. Another pair of stereotactic angled images ( ± 15°) is sometimes acquired, previous to fire-forward, in order to confirm that the target was reached. F. Final CC view after clip placement. Histopathological results showed an invasive lobular carcinoma in the left breast.

References

    1. Dibden A, Offman J, Duffy SW, Gabe R. Worldwide review and meta-analysis of cohort studies measuring the effect of mammography screening programmes on incidence-based breast cancer mortality. Cancers 2020; 12: 976. doi: 10.3390/cancers12040976
    1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. . Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 227–36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790
    1. Nazari SS, Mukherjee P. An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2018; 25: 259–67. doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5
    1. 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: 13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008
    1. Zhu X, Huang J-M, Zhang K, Xia L-J, Feng L, Yang P, et al. . Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for screening breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 2018; 18: e985–95. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.06.003
    1. Suter MB, Pesapane F, Agazzi GM, Gagliardi T, Nigro O, Bozzini A. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions : a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Breast Elsevier Ltd 2020; 53: 8–17.
    1. Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, Labaj O, Monti CB, Schiaffino S, et al. . Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insights Imaging 2019; 10: 76. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0
    1. Healthcare GE. GE Healthcare announces FDA 510(k) clearance of SenoBright Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) for breast cancer diagnosis [Internet]. 2011. Available from: [cited 2021 Feb 2].
    1. Jochelson MS, Lobbes MBI. Contrast-Enhanced mammography: state of the art. Radiology 2021; 299: 36–48. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021201948
    1. Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretière J-M. Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging 2006; 31: 188–93. doi: 10.1007/s00261-005-0386-5
    1. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, et al. . Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 38–41. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.1397
    1. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu M-C, Rochard F, Opolon P, et al. . Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: W528–37. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.1944
    1. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Anesi V, Burlon S, Cauli E, et al. . Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e1174–8. doi: 10.1259/bjr/19385909
    1. Jeukens CRLPN, 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. Invest Radiol 2014; 49: 659–65. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000068
    1. Daniaux M, De Zordo T, Santner W, Amort B, Koppelstätter F, Jaschke W, et al. . Dual-Energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 292: 739–47. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3693-2
    1. Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Rico D, Muller S, Rick A, et al. . Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys 2002; 29: 2419–26. doi: 10.1118/1.1510128
    1. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003; 228: 842–50. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2283020961
    1. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-Energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261–8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2291021276
    1. 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: 743–51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121084
    1. 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: 1350–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.015
    1. Blum KS, Antoch G, Mohrmann S, Obenauer S. Use of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) as diagnostic mammography-proof of concept. Radiography 2015; 21: 352–8. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2015.02.005
    1. Lalji UC, Jeukens CRLPN, 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: 2813–20. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2
    1. Jeukens C. Physics of contrast-enhanced mammography. In: Lobbes M, Jochelson M, eds. Contrast-enhanced Mammogr Cham. Switzerland: Springer; 2019. pp.. 23–39.
    1. Lalji UC, Houben IPL, 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: 4371–9. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4336-0
    1. van Nijnatten TJA, Smidt ML, Goorts B, Samiei S, Houben I, Kok EM, et al. . Can high school students help to improve breast radiologists in detecting missed breast cancer lesions on full-field digital mammography? J Cancer 2019; 10: 765–71. doi: 10.7150/jca.30494
    1. Berg WA, Bandos AI, Zuley ML, Waheed UX. Training radiologists to interpret contrast-enhanced mammography: toward a standardized lexicon. J Breast Imaging 2021; 3: 176–89. doi: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa115
    1. Cheung Y-C, Lin Y-C, Wan Y-L, Yeow K-M, Huang P-C, Lo Y-F, , 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: 2394–403. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1
    1. van Geel K, Kok EM, Krol JP, Houben IPL, Thibault FE, Pijnappel RM, et al. . Reversal of the hanging protocol of contrast enhanced mammography leads to similar diagnostic performance yet decreased reading times. Eur J Radiol 2019; 117: 62–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.05.013
    1. Bhimani C, Li L, Liao L, Roth RG, Tinney E, Germaine P. Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammography: modality-specific artifacts and other factors which may interfere with image quality. Acad Radiol 2017; 24: 89–94. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.024
    1. Nori J, Gill MK, Vignoli C, Bicchierai G, De Benedetto D, Di Naro F, et al. . Artefacts in contrast enhanced digital mammography: how can they affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis? Insights Imaging 2020; 11: 16. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0811-x
    1. 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: 565–74. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
    1. Yagil Y, Shalmon A, Rundstein A, Servadio Y, Halshtok O, Gotlieb M, et al. . Challenges in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography interpretation: artefacts lexicon. Clin Radiol 2016; 71: 450–7. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.01.012
    1. Phillips J, Fein-Zachary VJ, Slanetz PJ. Pearls and pitfalls of contrast-enhanced mammography. J Breast Imaging 2019; 1: 64–72. doi: 10.1093/jbi/wby013
    1. Lobbes M. Interpretation of contrast-enhanced mammography. In: Lobbes M, Jochelson M, eds. Contrast-enhanced Mammogr Cham. Switzerland: Springer; 2019. pp.. 61–75.
    1. Gluskin J, Click M, Fleischman R, Dromain C, Morris EA, Jochelson MS. Contamination artifact that mimics in-situ carcinoma on contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 2017; 95: 147–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.08.002
    1. Perry H, Phillips J, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ, Fein-Zachary VJ, Karimova EJ, Mehta TS, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced mammography: a systematic guide to interpretation and reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212: 222–31. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19265
    1. Lewis TC, Patel BK, Pizzitola VJ. Navigating contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Appl Radiol 2017; 46: 21–8.
    1. van Nijnatten TJA, Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Keating DM, Sung JS, Morrow M, et al. . Differences in degree of lesion enhancement on CEM between ILC and IDC. BJR|Open 2019; 1: 20180046. doi: 10.1259/bjro.20180046
    1. Ali-Mucheru M, Pockaj B, Patel B, Pizzitola V, Wasif N, Stucky C-C, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced digital mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23(Suppl 5): 649–55. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5567-7
    1. Tsigginou A, Gkali C, Chalazonitis A, Feida E, Vlachos DE, Zagouri F, et al. . Adding the power of iodinated contrast media to the credibility of mammography in breast cancer diagnosis. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 1067. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160397
    1. Houben IPL, Van de Voorde P, Jeukens CRLPN, Wildberger JE, Kooreman LF, Smidt ML, et al. . 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.004
    1. Deng C-Y, Juan Y-H, Cheung Y-C, Lin Y-C, Lo Y-F, Lin G, et al. . Quantitative analysis of enhanced malignant and benign lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Br J Radiol 2018; 91: 20170605. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170605
    1. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles E, Mendelson E, Morris E. ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston, VA, USA 2013;.
    1. Knogler T, Homolka P, Hoernig M, Leithner R, Langs G, Waitzbauer M, et al. . Application of BI-RADS descriptors in contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography: comparison with MRI. Breast Care 2017; 12: 212–6. doi: 10.1159/000478899
    1. Travieso-Aja MDM, Naranjo-Santana P, Fernández-Ruiz C, Severino-Rondón W, Maldonado-Saluzzi D, Rodríguez Rodríguez M, et al. . Factors affecting the precision of lesion sizing with contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Clin Radiol 2018; 73: 296–303. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.10.017
    1. Lobbes MBI, 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: 1668–76. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5
    1. Li L, Roth R, Germaine P, Ren S, Lee M, Hunter K, 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: 113–23. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.013
    1. Sorin V, Yagil Y, Shalmon A, Gotlieb M, Faermann R, Halshtok-Neiman O, et al. . Background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) as a breast cancer risk factor. Acad Radiol 2020; 27: 1234–40. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.10.034
    1. Sogani J, Morris EA, Kaplan JB, D'Alessio D, Goldman D, Moskowitz CS, et al. . Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology 2017; 282: 63–73. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016160284
    1. Neeter LMFH, Houben IPL, Nelemans PJ, Van Nijnatten TJA, Pijnappel RM, Frotscher C, et al. . Rapid access to contrast-enhanced spectral mammogRaphy in women recalled from breast cancer screening: the Racer trial study design. Trials 2019; 20: 759. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3867-5
    1. American College of Radiology Contrast Enhanced Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (CMIST) [Internet]. 2021. Available from: [cited 2021 May 10].
    1. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, Ganott MA, Gizienski T-A, Hakim CM, et al. . Contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) helps to safely reduce benign breast biopsies for low to moderately suspicious soft tissue lesions. Acad Radiol 2020; 27: 969–76. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2019.07.020
    1. Cheung Y-C, Juan Y-H, Lin Y-C, Lo Y-F, Tsai H-P, Ueng S-H, et al. . Dual-Energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: enhancement analysis on BI-RADS 4 Non-Mass microcalcifications in screened women. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0162740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162740
    1. Houben IP, Vanwetswinkel S, Kalia V, Thywissen T, Nelemans PJ, Heuts EM, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammography in the evaluation of breast suspicious calcifications: diagnostic accuracy and impact on surgical management. Acta Radiol 2019; 60: 1110–7. doi: 10.1177/0284185118822639
    1. Richter V, Hatterman V, Preibsch H, Bahrs SD, Hahn M, Nikolaou K, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammography in patients with MRI contraindications. Acta Radiol 2018; 59: 798–805. doi: 10.1177/0284185117735561
    1. Xing D, Lv Y, Sun B, Xie H, Dong J, Hao C, et al. . Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to magnetic resonance imaging in breast lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019; 43: 245–51. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000832
    1. Xiang W, Rao H, Zhou L. A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Thorac Cancer 2020; 11: 1423–32. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.13400
    1. Petrillo A, Fusco R, Vallone P, Filice S, Granata V, Petrosino T, et al. . Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification. Breast J 2020; 26: 860–72. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13739
    1. 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: 106. doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0899-1
    1. Blum KS, Rubbert C, Mathys B, Antoch G, Mohrmann S, Obenauer S. Use of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for intramammary cancer staging: preliminary results. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: 1363–9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.06.012
    1. 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: 1148–55. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.05.009
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.07.001
    1. Lobbes MBI, 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: 144–50. doi: 10.7150/jca.10705
    1. Travieso-Aja MDM, Maldonado-Saluzzi D, Naranjo-Santana P, Fernández-Ruiz C, Severino-Rondón W, Rodríguez Rodríguez M, et al. . Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions. Radiol Med 2019; 124: 1006–17. doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01056-2
    1. Lorek A, Steinhof-Radwańska K, Barczyk-Gutkowska A, Zarębski W, Boratyn-Nowicka A, Bobola A, et al. . Retrospective comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography with digital mammography in assessing tumor size in 668 cases of breast cancer. Med Sci Monit 2020; 26: e926977: e926977. doi: 10.12659/MSM.926977
    1. Bicchierai G, Tonelli P, Piacenti A, De Benedetto D, Boeri C, Vanzi E, et al. . Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: large-scale single-center experience. Breast J 2020; 26: 1276–83. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13766
    1. Lobbes M, Prevos R, Smidt M. Response monitoring of breast cancer patientsreceiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy using breast MRI – a review of current knowledge. J Cancer Ther Res 2012; 1: 34. doi: 10.7243/2049-7962-1-34
    1. Lobbes MBI, Prevos R, Smidt M, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, van Goethem M, Schipper R, et al. . The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Insights Imaging 2013; 4: 163–75. doi: 10.1007/s13244-013-0219-y
    1. Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology 2019; 292: 520–36. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182947
    1. Barra FR, Sobrinho AB, Barra RR, Magalhães MT, Aguiar LR, de Albuquerque GFL, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced mammography (CEM) for detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018 8531916 10.1155/2018/8531916
    1. Tang S, Xiang C, Yang Q. The diagnostic performance of CESM and CE-MRI in evaluating the pathological response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol 2020; 93: 20200301. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20200301
    1. Hunt CH, Hartman RP, Hesley GK. Frequency and severity of adverse effects of iodinated and gadolinium contrast materials: retrospective review of 456,930 doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 1124–7. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2520
    1. European Society of Urogenital Radiology ESUR Guidelines on Contrast Agents v10.0 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: [cited 2021 May 27].
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Acute kidney injury: prevention. detection and management (NICE Guideline NG148) [Internet] 2019;. cited 2021 May 27.
    1. 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: 245–58. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.10.002
    1. 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: 362–72. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16743
    1. Phillips J, Mihai G, Hassonjee SE, Raj SD, Palmer MR, Brook A, et al. . Comparative dose of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. American Journal of Roentgenology 2018; 211: 839–46. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19036
    1. FDA Mammography Quality Standards Act Regulations [Internet]. 1999. Available from: [cited 2021 Apr 18].
    1. National Research Council Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase 2. National Academic Press 2006;.
    1. Lobbes MBI, Mulder HKP, Rousch M, Backes WH, Wildberger JE, Jeukens CRLPN. Quantification of enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography using a custom-made quantifier tool (I-STRIP): a proof-of-concept study. Eur J Radiol 2018; 106: 114–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.021
    1. Patel BK, Ranjbar S, Wu T, Pockaj BA, Li J, Zhang N, et al. . Computer-Aided diagnosis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: a feasibility study. Eur J Radiol 2018; 98: 207–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.024
    1. Marino MA, Pinker K, Leithner D, Sung J, Avendano D, Morris EA, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced mammography and radiomics analysis for noninvasive breast cancer characterization: initial results. Mol Imaging Biol 2020; 22: 780–7. doi: 10.1007/s11307-019-01423-5
    1. Wang Z, Lin F, Ma H, Shi Y, Dong J, Yang P, et al. . Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammography-based radiomics nomogram for the prediction of neoadjuvant chemotherapy-insensitive breast cancers. Front Oncol 2021; 11: 605230. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.605230

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner