Advertisement

Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT)

Published:January 19, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2021.12.022

      Rationale and Objectives

      The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the radiation dose received during CEDM, short and long protocol (CEDM SP and CEDM LP), with dose received during DM and DBT on patients with varying breast thickness, age and density.

      Materials and Methods

      Between January 2019 and December 2019, patients having 6214 DM, 3662 DBT and 173 CEDM examinations in our department were analyzed. Protocol total single breast AGD has been evaluated for all clinical imaging protocols, extracting AGD values and exposure data from the dose DICOM Structured Report (SR) information stored in the hospital PACS system. Protocol AGD was calculated as the sum of single projection AGDs carried out in every exam for each clinical protocol. A total amount of 23,383 exams for each breast were analyzed. Protocol AGDs, stratified as a function of patient breast compression thickness, age, and breast density were assessed.

      Results

      The total protocol AGD median values for each protocol are: 2.8 mGy for DM, 3.2 mGy for DBT, 6.0 mGy for DM+DBT, 4.5 mGy for CEDM SP, 7.4 mGy for CEDM SP_DBT (CEDM SP protocol with DBT), 8.4 mGy for CEDM LP and 11.6 mGy for CEDM LP_DBT (CEDM LP protocol with DBT). CEDM SP AGD median value is 59% higher than DM AGD median value and 40% lesser than DM+DBT AGD median; this last difference was statistically confirmed with a p-value <0.001. AGD value for each standard breast CEDM SP projection results to be below 3-mGy limit.
      AGD value for each standard breast CEDM SP projection results to be below 3 mGy, as required by international legislation.
      For dense breasts, the AGD median value is 4.2 mGy, with the first and third quartile of 3.3 mGy and 6.0 mGy respectively; for non-dense breasts, the AGD median value is 4.7 mGy, with first and third quartile of 3.5 mGy and 6.3 mGy respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically tested and confirmed, with a p-value of 0.039.

      Conclusion

      CEDM SP results in higher radiation exposure compared with conventional DM and DBT but lower than the Combo mode. The dose administered during the CEDM SP is lower in patients with dense breasts regardless of their size. An interesting outcome, considering the ongoing studies on CEDM screening in patients with dense breasts.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Zanardo M
        • Cozzi A
        • Trimboli RM
        • et al.
        Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review.
        Insights Imaging. 2019; 10: 76
        • Bhimani C
        • Matta D
        • Roth RG
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications.
        Acad Radiol. 2017; 24: 84-88
        • Dromain C
        • Balleyguier C
        • Adler G
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
        Eur J Radiol. 2009; 69: 34-42
        • 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: 743-751
        • Lalji UC
        • Jeukens CR
        • 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: 2813-2820
        • Francescone MA
        • Jochelson MS
        • Dershaw DD
        Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
        Eur J Radiol. 2014; 831: 1350-1355
        • Amato F
        • Bicchierai G
        • Cirone D
        • et al.
        Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM).
        Radiol Med. 2019; 124: 1229-1237
        • Fallenberg EM
        • Schmitzberger FF
        • Amer H
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.
        Eur Radiol. 2017; 27: 2752-2764
        • Kim G
        • Phillips J
        • Cole E
        • et al.
        Comparison of contrast-enhanced mammography with conventional digital mammography in breast cancer screening: a pilot study.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2019; 16: 1456-1463
        • 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: 389-400
        • Xiang W
        • Rao H
        • Zhou L
        A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
        Thorac Cancer. 2020; 11: 1423-1432
        • Petrillo A
        • Fusco R
        • Vallone P
        • et al.
        Digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography alone and in combination compared to 2D digital synthetized mammography and MR imaging in breast cancer detection and classification.
        Breast J. 2019; 26: 860-872
        • Kim EY
        • Youn I
        • Ho Lee K
        • et al.
        Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced digital mammography versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer.
        J Breast Cancer. 2018; 21: 453-462
        • Li L
        • Roth R
        • Germaine P
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) vs breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions.
        Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017; 98: 113-123
        • Fallenberg EM
        • Dromain C
        • Diekmann F
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.
        Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 256-264
        • Patel BK
        • Gray RJ
        • Pockaj BA
        Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: W231-W237
        • Phillips J
        • Miller MM
        • Mehta TS
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) vs MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes.
        Clin Imaging. 2017; 42: 193-197
        • Sung JS
        • Lebron L
        • Keating D
        • et al.
        Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer.
        Radiology. 2019; 293: 81-88
        • Sorin V
        • Yagil Y
        • Yosepovich A
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in women with intermediate breast cancer risk and dense breasts.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211: W267-W274
        • Iotti V
        • Ravaioli S
        • Vacondio R
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammog- raphy in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.
        Breast Cancer Res. 2017; 19: 106
        • Patel BK
        • Hilal T
        • Covington M
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammog- raphy is comparable to MRI in the assessment of residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant systemic therapy.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 1350e6
        • Bhimani C
        • Matta D
        • Roth RG
        • et al.
        Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: technique, indications, and clinical applications.
        Acad Radiol. 2017; 24: 84-88
        • Patel BK
        • Lobbes MBI
        • Lewin J
        contrast enhanced spectral mammography: a review.
        Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018; 39: 70-79
        • Bernier J
        • Poortmans P
        Clinical relevance of normal and tumour cell radiosensitivity in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: a review.
        Breast. 2015; 24: 100-106
        • Barke LD
        • Freivogel ME
        Breast cancer risk assessment models and high-risk screening.
        Radiol Clin North Am. 2017; 55: 457-474
        • Lee TC
        • Reyna C
        • Shaughnessy E
        • Lewis JD
        Screening of populations at high risk for breast cancer.
        J Surg Oncol. 2019; 120: 820-830
        • Perry N
        • Broeders M
        • de Wolf C
        • et al.
        • European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF)
        European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis.
        Ann Oncol, 2006 (Fourth Edition)
        • Bicchierai G
        • Tonelli P
        • Piacenti A
        • et al.
        Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: large-scale single-center experience.
        Breast J. 2020; 26: 1276-1283
        • Skaane P
        • Bandos AI
        • Niklason LT
        • et al.
        Digital mammography vs digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the oslo tomosynthesis screening trial.
        Radiology. 2019; 291: 23-30
        • Friedewald SM
        • Rafferty EA
        • Rose SL
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 2499-2507
      1. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Quality assurance programme for digital mammography, 201.

      2. ACR BI- RADS atlas breast imaging reporting and data system. reston (VA) American college of radiology, 2013.

      3. Quality standards. 21 CFR §900.12(e)(5)(vi)

        • James JR
        • Pavlicek W
        • Hanson JA
        • et al.
        breast radiation dose with CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D tomosynthesis mammography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: 362-372
        • Phillips J
        • Mihai G
        • Hassonjee SE
        • et al.
        Comparative dose of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211: 839-846
      4. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical bene- fits or can some radiation exposure be avoided?

      5. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04764292. Screening Contrast-Enhanced Mammography as an Alternative to MRI (SCEMAM). 03/12/2021.

      6. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Research/Clinical-Research/CMIST. Contrast Enhanced Mammography Imaging Screening Trial (CMIST). 03/12/2021.

        • Melnikow J
        • Fenton JJ
        • Whitlock EP
        • et al.
        Supplemental screening for breast cancer in women with dense breasts: a systematic review for the U.S. preventive services task force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164: 268-278
        • Rudnicki W
        • Heinze S
        • Popiela T
        • et al.
        Quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement on contrast enhancement spectral mammography (CESM) and comparison with qualitative assessment.
        Anticancer Res. 2020; 40: 2925-2932
        • Deng CY
        • Juan YH
        • Cheung YC
        • et al.
        Quantitative analysis of enhanced malignant and benign lesions on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.
        Br J Radiol. 2018; 9120170605
        • Clauser P
        • Carbonaro LA
        • Pancot M
        • et al.
        Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis.
        Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 2830-2839
        • Girometti R
        • Sardanelli F
        • Marconi V
        • et al.
        Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis, unenhanced MRI, and their combination in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer: a multi-reader study.
        Acad Radiol. 2021; 28: 1339-1351