Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: A Radiologic-Pathologic Perspective of a Novel Functional Imaging Modality for Breast Cancer
Keywords:
Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM), Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Low energy, Subtracted Image, Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)Abstract
Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) is an emerging and promising functional imaging modality that tries to address the paucity of physiologic-based tumor imaging for the detection of breast cancer.
This article describes two cases of women with non-dense and dense breasts presenting with clinically palpable breast masses and the depiction of breast cancer utilizing Contrast- enhanced Spectral Mammography.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Jochelson M. Advanced imaging techniques for the detection of breast cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012:65-9. PMID: 24451711. https://doi.org/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.65.
2. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615-34. PMID: 26501537. https://doi.org/10. 1001/jama.2015.13183.
3. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003:138(3):168-75. PMID: 12558355.
4. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227-36. PMID: 17229950. https://doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa062790.
5. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(15):1179-89. PMID: 21795664. PMCID: PMC3149043. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr225.
6. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):1147-50. PMID: 17377060. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0619.
7. Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668-76. PMID: 24696228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5.
8. Chang CH, Nesbit DE, Fisher DR, et al. Computed tomographic mammography using a conventional body scanner. AJR Am J Roentgeol. 1982;138(3):553-8. PMID: 6978009. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.138.3.553.
9. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261-8. PMID: 12888621. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291021276.
10. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology: 2013;266(3):743-51. PMID: 23220903. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084.
11. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Constrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumor size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):256-64. PMID: 24048724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3007-7.
12. Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease. Radiology. 2017;285(2):389-400. PMID: 28654337. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161592.
13. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Potential cost-savings of contrast enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231-7. PMID: 28379734. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17239.
14. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology. 1990;175(3):621-8. PMID: 2343107. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343107.
15. Lalji UC, Jeukens CRLPN, Houben I, et al. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol. 2015:25(10):2813–20. PMCID: PMC4562003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2.
16. Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretière JM. Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31(2):188-93. PMID: 16447089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-005-0386-5.
17. Weis SM, Cheresh DA. Tumor angiogenesis: molecular pathways and therapeutic targets. Nat Med. 2011;17(11):1359-70. PMID: 22064426. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2537.
18. Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13-9. PMID: 27161411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008.
19. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind- reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2394-403. PMID: 24928280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1.
20. Cheung YC, Yuan YH, Lin YC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, Ueng SH, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: enhancement analysis on BI-RADS 4 non-mass microcalcifications in screened women. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162740.
21. Bhimani C, Malta D, Roth RG, Liao L, Timney E, Brill K, Germaine P. Contrast-ehanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications. Acad Radiol 2017;24(1):84-8. PMID: 27773458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.019.
2. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, et al. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1615-34. PMID: 26501537. https://doi.org/10. 1001/jama.2015.13183.
3. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003:138(3):168-75. PMID: 12558355.
4. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227-36. PMID: 17229950. https://doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa062790.
5. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(15):1179-89. PMID: 21795664. PMCID: PMC3149043. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr225.
6. del Carmen MG, Halpern EF, Kopans DB, et al. Mammographic breast density and race. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):1147-50. PMID: 17377060. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0619.
7. Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668-76. PMID: 24696228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5.
8. Chang CH, Nesbit DE, Fisher DR, et al. Computed tomographic mammography using a conventional body scanner. AJR Am J Roentgeol. 1982;138(3):553-8. PMID: 6978009. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.138.3.553.
9. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261-8. PMID: 12888621. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291021276.
10. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology: 2013;266(3):743-51. PMID: 23220903. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121084.
11. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Constrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumor size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):256-64. PMID: 24048724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3007-7.
12. Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease. Radiology. 2017;285(2):389-400. PMID: 28654337. doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161592.
13. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Potential cost-savings of contrast enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231-7. PMID: 28379734. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17239.
14. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, Takashima T, Seez P, Matsuura K. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology. 1990;175(3):621-8. PMID: 2343107. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.175.3.2343107.
15. Lalji UC, Jeukens CRLPN, Houben I, et al. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol. 2015:25(10):2813–20. PMCID: PMC4562003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2.
16. Cuenod CA, Fournier L, Balvay D, Guinebretière JM. Tumor angiogenesis: pathophysiology and implications for contrast-enhanced MRI and CT assessment. Abdom Imaging. 2006;31(2):188-93. PMID: 16447089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-005-0386-5.
17. Weis SM, Cheresh DA. Tumor angiogenesis: molecular pathways and therapeutic targets. Nat Med. 2011;17(11):1359-70. PMID: 22064426. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2537.
18. Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13-9. PMID: 27161411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.04.008.
19. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind- reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2394-403. PMID: 24928280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1.
20. Cheung YC, Yuan YH, Lin YC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, Ueng SH, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: enhancement analysis on BI-RADS 4 non-mass microcalcifications in screened women. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(9):e0162740. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162740.
21. Bhimani C, Malta D, Roth RG, Liao L, Timney E, Brill K, Germaine P. Contrast-ehanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications. Acad Radiol 2017;24(1):84-8. PMID: 27773458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.019.
Published
11/14/2017
How to Cite
Buenaflor, M. T., & Moria, F. (2017). Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: A Radiologic-Pathologic Perspective of a Novel Functional Imaging Modality for Breast Cancer. PJP, 2(2), 41. Retrieved from https://philippinejournalofpathology.org/index.php/PJP/article/view/78
Issue
Section
Diagnostic Perspectives
License
The Philippine Journal of Pathology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on works made open access at http://philippinejournalofpathology.org
@philippinepathologyjournal