Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM)

被引:110
|
作者
Francescone, Mark A. [1 ]
Jochelson, Maxine S. [2 ]
Dershaw, D. David [2 ]
Sung, Janice S. [2 ]
Hughes, Mary C. [2 ]
Zheng, Junting [2 ]
Moskowitz, Chaya [2 ]
Morris, Elizabeth A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Med Ctr, New York, NY 10019 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, New York, NY 10065 USA
关键词
Mammography/methods; Contrast media; Breast neoplasms/diagnosis; Radiography; Dual-energy scanned projection/methods; AGREEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.015
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: Contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) uses low energy and high energy exposures to produce a subtracted contrast image. It is currently performed with a standard full-field digital mammogram (FFDM). The purpose is to determine if the low energy image performed after intravenous iodine injection can replace the standard FFDM. Methods: And Materials: In an IRB approved HIPAA compatible study, low-energy CEDM images of 170 breasts in 88 women (ages 26-75; mean 50.3) undergoing evaluation for elevated risk or newly diagnosed breast cancer were compared to standard digital mammograms performed within 6 months. Technical parameters including posterior nipple line (PNL) distance, compression thickness, and compression force on the MLO projection were compared. Mammographic findings were compared qualitatively and quantitatively. Mixed linear regression using generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was performed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were estimated to assess agreement. Results: No statistical difference was found in the technical parameters compression thickness, PNL distance, compression force (p-values: 0.767, 0.947, 0.089). No difference was found in the measured size of mammographic findings (p-values 0.982-0.988). Grouped calcifications had a mean size/extent of 2.1 cm (SD 0.6) in the low-energy contrast images, and a mean size/extent of 2.2 cm (SD 0.6) in the standard digital mammogram images. Masses had a mean size of 1.8 cm (SD 0.2) in both groups. Calcifications were equally visible on both CEDM and FFDM. Conclusion: Low energy CEDM images are equivalent to standard FFDM despite the presence of intravenous iodinated contrast. Low energy CEDM images may be used for interpretation in place of the FFDM, thereby reducing patient dose. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1350 / 1355
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Radiation Exposure of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Compared With Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Jeukens, Cecile R. L. P. N.
    Lalji, Ulrich C.
    Meijer, Eduard
    Bakija, Betina
    Theunissen, Robin
    Wildberger, Joachim E.
    Lobbes, Marc B. I.
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2014, 49 (10) : 659 - 665
  • [2] Implementation of telemanagement for full-field digital mammography (FFDM)
    Fan, Y
    Lou, SL
    Wong, A
    Zhang, H
    Sickles, EA
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2000: PACS DESIGN AND EVALUATION - ENGINEERING AND CLINICAL ISSUES, 2000, 3980 : 400 - 407
  • [3] PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS WITH FULL-FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND CONTRAST-ENHANCED SPECTRAL MAMMOGRAPHY
    Avramova-Cholakova, Simona
    Kulama, Eugenia
    Daskalov, Sivo
    Loveland, John
    RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2021, 197 (3-4) : 212 - 229
  • [4] Texture Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Images
    Mateos, Maria-Julieta
    Gastelum, Alfonso
    Marquez, Jorge
    Brandan, Maria-Ester
    BREAST IMAGING, IWDM 2016, 2016, 9699 : 585 - 592
  • [5] Value and importance of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) for screening
    Grabbe, E
    Fischer, U
    Funke, M
    Hermann, KP
    Obenauer, S
    Baum, F
    RADIOLOGE, 2001, 41 (04): : 359 - 365
  • [6] Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound
    Patel, Bhavika K.
    Garza, Sandra Alheli
    Eversman, Sarah
    Lopez-Alvarez, Yania
    Kosiorek, Heidi
    Pockaj, Barbara A.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2017, 46 : 78 - 84
  • [7] Digital Mammography Versus Full-Field Digital Mammography
    Hall, Ferris M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2012, 198 (01) : 240 - 240
  • [8] Time Evolution of Texture Parameters of Subtracted Images Obtained by Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM)
    Mateos, M-J
    Gastelum, A.
    Marquez, J.
    Brandan, M-E
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3610 - 3610
  • [9] Full-field digital mammography
    Bick, U
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2000, 172 (12): : 957 - 964
  • [10] Full-field digital mammography
    U Bick
    Breast Cancer Research, 2 (Suppl 2)