Mark A Francescone1, Maxine S Jochelson2, D David Dershaw3, Janice S Sung4, Mary C Hughes5, Junting Zheng6, Chaya Moskowitz7, Elizabeth A Morris8. 1. Columbia University Medical Center, ColumbiaDoctors Midtown, 51 West 51st Street, Suite 300, New York, NY 10019, United States. Electronic address: maf2184@columbia.edu. 2. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: jochelsm@mskcc.org. 3. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: dershawd@mskcc.org. 4. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: sungj@mskcc.org. 5. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: hughesm@mskcc.org. 6. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: zhengj@mskcc.org. 7. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: moskowc1@mskcc.org. 8. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, United States. Electronic address: morrise@mskcc.org.
Abstract
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 2.1cm (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.
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 2.1cm (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.
Authors: Julie Sogani; Elizabeth A Morris; Jennifer B Kaplan; Donna D'Alessio; Debra Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Roberta Fusco; Adele Piccirillo; Mario Sansone; Vincenza Granata; Maria Rosaria Rubulotta; Teresa Petrosino; Maria Luisa Barretta; Paolo Vallone; Raimondo Di Giacomo; Emanuela Esposito; Maurizio Di Bonito; Antonella Petrillo Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-04-30