Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)

  • Review
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography is one of the latest developments in breast care. Imaging with contrast agents in breast cancer was already known from previous magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography studies. However, high costs, limited availability—or high radiation dose—led to the development of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). We reviewed the current literature, present our experience, discuss the advantages and drawbacks of CESM and look at the future of this innovative technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lewin J (2001) Dual-energy contrast protocol offers new tool to detect breast cancer. Diagn Imaging 11:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S et al (2011) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 21(3):565–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology 228:842–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Allec N, Abbaszadeh S, Scott CC et al (2012) Including the effect of motion artifacts in noise and performance analysis of dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography. Phys Med Biol 57(24):8405–8425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V et al (2003) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 229(1):261–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS et al (2013) Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 266(3):743–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chakraborty DP, Barnes GT (1989) An energy sensitive cassette for dual-energy mammography. Med Phys 16(1):7–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 69(1):34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bornefalk H, Lewin JM, Danielsson M et al (2006) Single-shot dual-energy subtraction mammography with electronic spectrum splitting: feasibility. Eur J Radiol 60(2):275–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Taupitz M et al (2003) Use of iodine-based contrast media in digital full-field mammography—initial experience. Rofo 175(3):342–345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Skarpathiotakis M, Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK et al (2002) Development of contrast digital mammography. Med Phys 29(10):2419–2426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S et al (2006) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR 187(5):W528–W537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lobbes MB, Smidt ML, Houwers J et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clin Radiol 68(9):935–944

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S et al (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol 78(1):112–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F et al (2005) Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 40(7):397–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Badr S, Laurent N, Régis C et al (2014) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography in routine clinical practice in 2013. Diagn Interv Imaging 95:245–258

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 24(1):256–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat 146(2):371–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F et al (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 14(3):R94

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mokhtar O, Mahmoud S (2014) Can contrast enhanced mammography solve the problem of dense breast lesions? Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2014.04.007

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thibault F, Balleyguier C, Tardivon A et al (2012) Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI? Eur J Radiol 81(Suppl 1):S162–S164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD et al (2014) Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol 83(8):1350–1355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol 24(7):1668–1676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Froeling V, Diekmann F, Renz DM et al (2013) Correlation of contrast agent kinetics between iodinated contrast-enhanced spectral tomosynthesis and gadolinium-enhanced MRI of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 23(6):1528–1536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Drukker K, Duewer F, Giger ML et al (2014) Mammographic quantitative image analysis and biologic image composition for breast lesion characterization and classification. Med Phys 41(3):031915

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsai CJ, Chen RC, Hung SH et al (2012) Feasibility study for the improvement of microcalcification visualization in different breast thicknesses and tissue components using a dual-energy approach in digital mammography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36(4):488–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Martin Daniaux, Tobias De Zordo, Birgit Amort & Werner Jaschke

  2. Department of Radiology, Kantonsspital Baden AG, Im Ergel 1, 5404, Baden, Switzerland

    Wolfram Santner

  3. RIK - Radiologisches Institut Kettenbrücke, Sennstraße 1, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Florian Koppelstätter

  4. Department of Radiology, Institut de cancérologie Gustave-Roussy, 39 rue Camille Desmoulin, 94805, Villejuif, France

    Clarisse Dromain

  5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology of the Tyrolean State Hospitals Ltd, Cancer Registry of Tyrol, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Willi Oberaigner

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Michael Hubalek & Christian Marth

Authors
  1. Martin Daniaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias De Zordo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfram Santner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Birgit Amort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Florian Koppelstätter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Werner Jaschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Clarisse Dromain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Willi Oberaigner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michael Hubalek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Christian Marth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias De Zordo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daniaux, M., De Zordo, T., Santner, W. et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Arch Gynecol Obstet 292, 739–747 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3693-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3693-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation