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
  • [41] Advantages of gridless full-field digital mammography
    Nykänen, K
    Siltanen, S
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2003: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, PTS 1 AND 2, 2003, 5030 : 137 - 146
  • [42] Current status of full-field digital mammography
    Pisano, ED
    Yaffe, MJ
    Hemminger, BM
    Hendrick, RE
    Niklason, LT
    Maidment, ADA
    Kimme-Smith, CM
    Feig, SA
    Sickles, EA
    Braeuning, MP
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2000, 7 (04) : 266 - 280
  • [43] Clinical evaluation of CR mammography in comparison with full-field digital mammography
    Uchiyama, N
    Kobayashi, H
    Tanikoshi, M
    Machida, M
    Tajima, H
    Kumazaki, T
    Moriyama, N
    DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, : 494 - 496
  • [44] Performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast
    Wang, Mengru
    Zhuang, Shan
    Sheng, Liuli
    Zhao, Yu Nian
    Shen, Wenrong
    PRECISION MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2022, 11 (02): : 56 - 61
  • [45] Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)
    Bertolini, Marco
    Nitrosi, Andrea
    Borasi, Giovanni
    Botti, Andrea
    Tassoni, Davide
    Sghedoni, Roberto
    Zuccoli, Giulio
    JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2011, 24 (01) : 58 - 65
  • [46] Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)
    Marco Bertolini
    Andrea Nitrosi
    Giovanni Borasi
    Andrea Botti
    Davide Tassoni
    Roberto Sghedoni
    Giulio Zuccoli
    Journal of Digital Imaging, 2011, 24 : 58 - 65
  • [47] Causes of differences between full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography interpretations in the Colorado/Massachusetts full-field digital mammography screening trial
    Lewin, JM
    D'Orsi, CJ
    Isaacs, P
    Moss, LJ
    Hendrick, RE
    RADIOLOGY, 2000, 217 : 199 - 199
  • [48] Digital luminescence mammography (CR) versus full-field digital mammography (DR): A phantom study
    Schulz-Wendtland, RW
    Aichinger, UG
    Lell, MM
    Kuchar, I
    Tartsch, M
    Bautz, WA
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 416 - 417
  • [49] Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    McDonald, Elizabeth S.
    McCarthy, Anne Marie
    Akhtar, Amana L.
    Synnestvedt, Marie B.
    Schnall, Mitchell
    Conant, Emily F.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2015, 205 (05) : 1143 - 1148
  • [50] A new breast phantom suitable for digital mammography, contrast-enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Zhang, Changsheng
    Fu, Jian
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2023, 68 (04):