PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of using intravenous contrast material with full-field digital mammography to facilitate the detection and characterization of lesions in the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two women scheduled for biopsy because they were suspected of having abnormalities at breast imaging underwent imaging with contrast material-enhanced digital mammography. Six sequential images of the affected breast were obtained, with a contrast agent injected intravenously between the time the first and second images were obtained. Image processing included registration and logarithmic subtraction. Lesions were evaluated for the presence, morphology, and kinetics of enhancement. Lesion type, size, and pathologic findings were correlated with the findings at contrast-enhanced digital mammography. RESULTS: At contrast-enhanced digital mammography, enhancement was observed in eight of 10 patients with biopsy-proved cancers. In one case of ductal carcinoma in situ and one case of invasive ductal carcinoma, enhancement was not observed. No enhancement was seen in seven of 12 cases in which lesions were suspected of being malignant at initial imaging but were benign. Morphology generally correlated with the pathologic diagnosis. The kinetics of lesion enhancement showed similarity to that seen with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging but was not consistent. CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest that contrast-enhanced digital mammography potentially may be useful in identification of lesions in the mammographically dense breast. Further investigation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography as a diagnostic tool for breast cancer is warranted.
PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of using intravenous contrast material with full-field digital mammography to facilitate the detection and characterization of lesions in the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two women scheduled for biopsy because they were suspected of having abnormalities at breast imaging underwent imaging with contrast material-enhanced digital mammography. Six sequential images of the affected breast were obtained, with a contrast agent injected intravenously between the time the first and second images were obtained. Image processing included registration and logarithmic subtraction. Lesions were evaluated for the presence, morphology, and kinetics of enhancement. Lesion type, size, and pathologic findings were correlated with the findings at contrast-enhanced digital mammography. RESULTS: At contrast-enhanced digital mammography, enhancement was observed in eight of 10 patients with biopsy-proved cancers. In one case of ductal carcinoma in situ and one case of invasive ductal carcinoma, enhancement was not observed. No enhancement was seen in seven of 12 cases in which lesions were suspected of being malignant at initial imaging but were benign. Morphology generally correlated with the pathologic diagnosis. The kinetics of lesion enhancement showed similarity to that seen with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging but was not consistent. CONCLUSION: The results of this preliminary study suggest that contrast-enhanced digital mammography potentially may be useful in identification of lesions in the mammographically dense breast. Further investigation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography as a diagnostic tool for breast cancer is warranted.
Authors: Nicolas D Prionas; Karen K Lindfors; Shonket Ray; Shih-Ying Huang; Laurel A Beckett; Wayne L Monsky; John M Boone Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas Knogler; Peter Homolka; Mathias Hörnig; Robert Leithner; Georg Langs; Martin Waitzbauer; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Sabine Leitner; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David W Erickson; Jered R Wells; Gregory M Sturgeon; Ehsan Samei; James T Dobbins; W Paul Segars; Joseph Y Lo Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105