Dual energy iodine contrast imaging with mammography and tomosynthesis

Ren, Bin; Ruth, Chris; Zhang, Yiheng; Smith, Andrew P.; Kennedy, Don; O'Keefe, Bernadette; Shaw, Ian; Williams, Cornell L.; Ye, Zhen; Ingal, Elena; Polischuk, B.; Jing, Zhenxue

doi:10.1117/12.2008147

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the radiation dose was estimated to be only 1.2 times that of a regular mammogram [30]. The radiation dose for CEDM (sum of high- and low-energy image dose) for a woman with average breast size (equivalent to 4.2-cm compressed breast thickness with 50% fat and 50% glandular composition) is <3.0 mGy [12]. Finally, CEDM provides an easy and simple method for the surgeon and clinician to interpret images without having to know the many complicated parameters of CEMRI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four routine views were acquired within 5 minutes, starting at 2 minutes after the injection (Figure 1). The mean radiation dose per view was 1.2 mGy for digital mammography and <3.0 mGy for CEDM (4.2 cm compressed breast thickness) [12]. The target breast was defined as the side containing the proven malignancy, and the nontarget breast as the opposite side of the proven malignancy.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) in preoperative evaluations, and to evaluate the effect of each modality on the surgical management of women with breast cancer.MethodsThis single-center, prospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. From November 2016 to October 2017, 84 patients who were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma (69/84) and ductal carcinoma in situ (15/84), and underwent both CEDM and CEMRI, were enrolled. Imaging findings and surgical management were correlated with pathological results and compared. The diagnostic performance of both modalities in the detection of index and secondary cancers (multifocality and multicentricity), and occult cancer in the contralateral breast, was compared. The authors also evaluated whether CEDM or CEMRI resulted in changes in the surgical management of the affected breast due to imaging-detected findings.ResultsEighty-four women were included in the analysis. Compared with CEMRI, CEDM demonstrated a similar sensitivity (92.9% [78/84] vs. 95.2% [80/84]) in detecting index cancer (p=0.563). For the detection of secondary cancers in the ipsilateral breast and occult cancer in the contralateral breast, no significant differences were found between CEDM and CEMRI (p=0.999 and p=0.999, respectively). Regarding changes in surgical management, CEDM resulted in similar changes compared with CEMRI (30.9% [26/84] vs. 29.7% [25/84], p=0.610). Regarding changes in surgical management due to false-positive findings, no significant differences were found between CEDM and CEMRI (34.6% [9/26] vs. 44.0% [11/25], p=0.782).ConclusionCEDM demonstrated a diagnostic performance comparable with CEMRI in depicting index cancers, secondary cancers, and occult cancer in the contralateral breast. CEDM demonstrated similar changes in surgical management compared with CEMRI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All CEDM examinations were performed within 7 days of CEMRI using a digital mammography device capable of dual energy CEDM acquisition (Selenia Dimensions; Hologic, Bedford, USA). Previously, techniques of CEDM and CEMRI were described in detail [9,10].…”

Section: Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography and Contrastenhanced Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography Versus Contrast-enhanced MRI for Detecting Residual Disease after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Kim

Yun

Park

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preoperative evaluation of breast cancer using contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) as a possible alternative to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) has gained acceptance. Our aim is to compare the diagnostic performance of CEDM and CEMRI for chemotherapeutic response in breast cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).Methods: From November 2017 to October 2018, 30 patients with invasive carcinoma who performed both CEDM and CEMRI were included. Residual malignancy sizes after NAC were compared with histopathological results. The diagnostic performances for detecting residual cancers were compared using Lin concordance and Pearson correlation coefficients.Results: Thirty patients were included for the analysis. Mean tumor size after NAC was 1.22 cm (range: 0–7.0 cm) for CEDM and 1.13 cm (range: 0–5.1cm) for CEMRI compared with 1.89 cm (range: 0–12.0 cm) at final pathology measurement. Sensitivity for identifying residual lesion was for CEDM and CEMRI is as follows (CEDM 62.5%, 95% CI 40.6–81.2, CEMRI 66.7%, 95% CI 44.7–84.4). The positive predictive value (PPV) for residual lesion was 93.8% (95% CI 69.8–99.8) for CEDM and 88.9% (95% CI 65.3–98.6) for CEMRI. CEDM had a mean difference from pathology measurement of 0.668 cm, with a concordance coefficient of 0.202 and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.231 (p=0.220).Conclusions: Diagnostic value of CEDM for detecting residual tumor extent after NAC was comparable to that of CEMRI.

show abstract

“…26,27 Great effort has been devoted to the development and optimization of CEDBT. 10,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] The feasibility of CEDBT has also been demonstrated in a pilot clinical study using a photon-counting DBT system to allow spectral imaging in single shot with low dose. 37 It has been shown that DBT provides more accurate tumor margin assessment and size measurement than FFDM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis for lesion assessment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) reveals neovasculature of breast lesions in a two-dimensional contrast enhancement map. Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CEDBT) provides contrast enhancement in three dimensions, which may improve lesion characterization and localization. We aim to compare CEDM and CEDBT for lesion assessment. Women with breast imaging-reporting and data system 4 or 5 suspicious breast lesion(s) were recruited in our study and were imaged with CEDM and CEDBT in succession under one breast compression. Two radiologists assessed CEDM and CEDBT with both images displayed side-by-side and compared (1) contrast enhancement of lesions and (2) lesion margin using a five-point scale ranging from −2 (CEDM much better) to þ2 (CEDBT much better). Biopsy identified 19 malignant lesions with contrast enhancement. Our results show that CEDBT provides better lesion margins than CEDM with limited reduction in contrast enhancement. CEDBT delivers less radiation dose compared to CEDM + DBT. Synthetic CEDM can be generated from CEDBT data and provides lesion contrast enhancement comparable to CEDM. CEDBT has potential for clinical applications, such as treatment response monitoring and guidance for biopsy.

show abstract

Dual energy iodine contrast imaging with mammography and tomosynthesis

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer

Diagnostic Value of Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography Versus Contrast-enhanced MRI for Detecting Residual Disease after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

Comparison of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis for lesion assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About