scholarly journals Quantitative Assessment of Iodine Intensity of Different Types of Lesions in the Low-Energy (LE) Images of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Sachila Niroshani ◽  
Sachila Niroshani ◽  
Tokiko Nakamura ◽  
Nikaidou Michiru ◽  
Toru Negishi
Keyword(s):  
Iodine Concentration ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Fatty Tissue ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Mean Intensity ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The One ◽  
Minimum Intensity

Purpose: To assess the iodine enhancement intensity of breast lesions in low energy (LE) images obtained in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) with different tissue compositions. Materials and Methods: A 50 mm dedicated phantom with different lesion insert and iodine insert were used to assess the enhancement intensity quantitatively. The target slab of the phantom consists of three lesions + iodine inserts together and 100% adipose equivalent,100% glandular equivalent inserts alone to mimic the adipose and glandular lesion without contrast-enhancement. Each iodine inserts having a concentration of 0.5 mgI/cm3, 1.0 mgI/cm3, 2.0 mgI/cm3. The phantom was exposed under semiautomated function at 28 kV, 30 kV, and 32 kV with Mo/Rh target/filter combination. Iodine intensity was estimated for three types of lesions at three breast equivalent compositions. Results: Lesions with fatty tissue had high intensity while lesions with glandular tissues had the minimum intensity. Among fatty lesions, highest mean intensity value (0.972±0.003) observed with minimum iodine concentration (F + 0.5 mgI/cm3). The highest mean intensity value (0.882±0.001) was found related to the glandular lesion with maximum iodine concentration (G + 2.0 mgI/cm3). The one-way ANOVA statistical test confirmed that mean intensity values were significantly varied among different lesions (P < 0.05). Conclusion: LE images obtained in CESM can be used to identify the different types of lesions without performing the full field digital mammography (FFDM) as an additional examination prior to the CESM procedure.

scholarly journals Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Screening Women after Breast Conserving Surgery

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 3495
Author(s):  
Jill Gluskin ◽  
Carolina Rossi Saccarelli ◽  
Daly Avendano ◽  
Maria Adele Marino ◽  
Almir G. V. Bitencourt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Conserving Surgery ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
One Year

To investigate the value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in screening breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery (BCS), this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution study included 971 CEM exams in 541 asymptomatic patients treated with BCS who underwent screening CEM between January 2013 and November 2018. Histopathology, or at least a one-year follow-up, was used as the standard of reference. Twenty-one of 541 patients (3.9%) were diagnosed with ipsi- or contralateral breast cancer: six (28.6%) cancers were seen with low-energy images (equivalent to FFDM), an additional nine (42.9%) cancers were detected only on iodine (contrast-enhanced) images, and six interval cancers were identified within 365 days of a negative screening CEM. Of the 10 ipsilateral cancers detected on CEM, four were detected on low-energy images (40%). Of the five contralateral cancers detected on CEM, two were detected on low-energy images (40%). Overall, the cancer detection rate (CDR) for CEM was 15.4/1000 (15/971), and the positive predictive value (PPV3) of the biopsies performed was 42.9% (15/35). For findings seen on low-energy images, with or without contrast, the CDR was 6.2/1000 (6/971), and the PPV3 of the biopsies performed was 37.5% (6/16). In the post-BCS screening setting, CEM has a higher CDR than FFDM.

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 83 (8) ◽  
pp. 1350-1355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Francescone ◽  
Maxine S. Jochelson ◽  
D. David Dershaw ◽  
Janice S. Sung ◽  
Mary C. Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

scholarly journals Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 2813-2820 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. C. Lalji ◽  
C. R. L. P. N. Jeukens ◽  
I. Houben ◽  
P. J. Nelemans ◽  
R. E. van Engen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Quality ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

scholarly journals The Diagnostic Value of Contrast-enhanced 2D Mammography in Everyday Clinical use

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidewij Neeter ◽  
Frank Raat ◽  
Stephanie Meens-Koreman ◽  
Rogier van Stiphout ◽  
Steffie Timmermans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Response Monitoring ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
One Year ◽  
Histopathological Results

Abstract Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor’s system.We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination , for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3% to 87.6% (p<0.0001), specificity from 87.8% to 94.6% (p=0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p=0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor’s systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.

scholarly journals The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced 2D mammography in everyday clinical use

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. M. F. H. Neeter ◽  
H. P. J. Raat ◽  
S. D. Meens-Koreman ◽  
R. S. A. van Stiphout ◽  
S. M. E. C. Timmermans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Low Energy ◽  
Response Monitoring ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
One Year ◽  
Histopathological Results

AbstractContrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has shown to be superior to full-field digital mammography (FFDM), but current results are dominated by studies performed on systems by one vendor. Information on diagnostic accuracy of other CEM systems is limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEM on an alternative vendor’s system. We included all patients who underwent CEM in one hospital in 2019, except those with missing data or in whom CEM was used as response monitoring tool. Three experienced breast radiologists scored the low-energy images using the BI-RADS classification. Next, the complete CEM exams were scored similarly. Histopathological results or a minimum of one year follow-up were used as reference standard. Diagnostic performance and AUC were calculated and compared between low-energy images and the complete CEM examination, for all readers independently as well as combined. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 23.0% of the patients (35/152). Compared to low-energy images, overall CEM sensitivity increased from 74.3 to 87.6% (p < 0.0001), specificity from 87.8 to 94.6% (p = 0.0146). AUC increased from 0.872 to 0.957 (p = 0.0001). Performing CEM on the system tested, showed that, similar to earlier studies mainly performed on another vendor’s systems, both sensitivity and specificity improved when compared to FFDM.

Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 78-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhavika K. Patel ◽  
Sandra Alheli Garza ◽  
Sarah Eversman ◽  
Yania Lopez-Alvarez ◽  
Heidi Kosiorek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Tumor Extent

scholarly journals Positive molecular breast imaging: challenges and problem solving with contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. e230043
Author(s):  
Jeremy SL Ong ◽  
Felicity Whitewood ◽  
Donna B Taylor ◽  
Deepthi Dissanayake
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Cross Correlation ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Molecular Breast Imaging ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Hypervascular Lesion ◽  
Anatomical Information

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is a relatively new technique with high sensitivity for breast cancer detection. However, because it only provides limited anatomical information, cross-correlation of MBI findings with conventional breast imaging modalities such as full field digital mammography can be challenging. We report a case of a positive MBI study in a supplemental screening setting, where cross-correlation of MBI, ultrasound, mammogram and biopsy findings was difficult. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) demonstrated a hypervascular lesion at the biopsy clip, helping to prove imaging/histopathological concordance. This case highlights the challenges of incorporating MBI into conventional imaging workup, as well as the use of CESM in problem solving.

Radiation Exposure of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Compared With Full-Field Digital Mammography

2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 659-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile R.L.P.N. Jeukens ◽  
Ulrich C. Lalji ◽  
Eduard Meijer ◽  
Betina Bakija ◽  
Robin Theunissen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts

Breast Cancer ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miki Mori ◽  
Sadako Akashi-Tanaka ◽  
Satoko Suzuki ◽  
Murasaki Ikeda Daniels ◽  
Chie Watanabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Digital Mammography ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Dense Breasts ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

scholarly journals Current Status of Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Comprehensive Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 084653712110290
Author(s):  
Anat Kornecki
Keyword(s):  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Full Field ◽  
Dce Mri ◽  
Full Field Digital Mammography ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Diagnostic Setting

Objectives: The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed and updated review of the physics, techniques, indications, limitations, reporting, implementation and management of contrast enhanced mammography. Background: Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), is an emerging iodine-based modified dual energy mammography technique. In addition to having the same advantages as standard full-field digital mammography (FFDM), CEM provides information regarding tumor enhancement, relying on tumor angiogenesis, similar to dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). This article reviews current literature on CEM and highlights considerations that are critical to the successful use of this modality. Conclusion: Multiple studies point to the advantage of using CEM in the diagnostic setting of breast imaging, which approaches that of DCE-MRI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document