Literature DB >> 33032103

Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future.

Julie Sogani1, Victoria L Mango2, Delia Keating1, Janice S Sung1, Maxine S Jochelson1.   

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) combines conventional mammography with iodinated contrast material to improve cancer detection. CEM has comparable performance to breast MRI without the added cost or time of conventional MRI protocols. Thus, this technique may be useful for indications previously reserved for MRI, such as problem-solving, determining disease extent in patients with newly diagnosed cancer, monitoring response to neoadjuvant therapy, evaluating the posttreatment breast for residual or recurrent disease, and potentially screening in women at intermediate- or high-risk for breast cancer. This article will provide a comprehensive overview on the past, present, and future of CEM, including its evolving role in the diagnostic and screening settings.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast imaging; Contrast-enhanced digital mammography; Contrast-enhanced mammography; Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33032103      PMCID: PMC8494428          DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Imaging        ISSN: 0899-7071            Impact factor:   1.605


  66 in total

1.  Comparison of Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging.

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

2.  Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

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

3.  Comparison of the Mammography, Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Ultrasonography in a Group of 116 patients.

Authors:  Elzbieta Luczyńska; Sylwia Heinze; Agnieszka Adamczyk; Janusz Rys; Jerzy W Mitus; Edward Hendrick
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.480

4.  Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.

Authors:  Felix Diekmann; Martin Freyer; Susanne Diekmann; Eva M Fallenberg; Thomas Fischer; Ulrich Bick; Alexander Pöllinger
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-11-19       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Roberta A Jong; Martin J Yaffe; Mia Skarpathiotakis; Rene S Shumak; Nathalie M Danjoux; Anoma Gunesekara; Donald B Plewes
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-07-24       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  Eric L Rosen; Kimberly L Blackwell; Jay A Baker; Mary Scott Soo; Rex C Bentley; Daohai Yu; Thaddeus V Samulski; Mark W Dewhirst
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Gordon S Abrams; Marie A Ganott; Terri-Ann Gizienski; Christiane M Hakim; Amy E Kelly; Bronwyn E Nair; Jules H Sumkin; Uzma Waheed; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 9.  Artefacts in contrast enhanced digital mammography: how can they affect diagnostic image quality and confuse clinical diagnosis?

Authors:  Jacopo Nori; Maninderpal Kaur Gill; Chiara Vignoli; Giulia Bicchierai; Diego De Benedetto; Federica Di Naro; Ermanno Vanzi; Cecilia Boeri; Vittorio Miele
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2020-02-07

10.  Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael L Marinovich; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig; Francesco Sardanelli; Eleftherios Mamounas; Gunter von Minckwitz; Valentina Guarneri; Savannah C Partridge; Frances C Wright; Jae Hyuck Choi; Madhumita Bhattacharyya; Laura Martincich; Eren Yeh; Viviana Londero; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: State-of-the-Art Review.

Authors:  Lars J Grimm; Habib Rahbar; Monica Abdelmalak; Allison H Hall; Marc D Ryser
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Five decades of progress in surgical oncology: Breast.

Authors:  Stephanie Downs-Canner; Hiram S Cody
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-10       Impact factor: 2.885

Review 3.  The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.109

4.  Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli; Francesca Caumo
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 6.639

5.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced, Spectral Mammography (CESM) and 3T Magnetic Resonance Compared to Full-Field Digital Mammography plus Ultrasound in Breast Lesions: Results of a (Pilot) Open-Label, Single-Centre Prospective Study.

Authors:  Francesca Romana Ferranti; Federica Vasselli; Maddalena Barba; Francesca Sperati; Irene Terrenato; Franco Graziano; Patrizia Vici; Claudio Botti; Antonello Vidiri
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Artifact reduction in contrast-enhanced mammography.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Enrica Baldan; Elisabetta Bezzon; Francesca Caumo
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-05-13

Review 7.  How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Authors:  Federica Vasselli; Alessandra Fabi; Francesca Romana Ferranti; Maddalena Barba; Claudio Botti; Antonello Vidiri; Silvia Tommasin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 8.  Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Fabrizia Gelardi; Elisa Maria Ragaini; Martina Sollini; Daniela Bernardi; Arturo Chiti
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-04

9.  Diagnostic performance of perilesional radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.

Authors:  Simin Wang; Yuqi Sun; Ruimin Li; Ning Mao; Qin Li; Tingting Jiang; Qianqian Chen; Shaofeng Duan; Haizhu Xie; Yajia Gu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Axillary Nodal Metastases from Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (CUPAx): Role of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) in Detecting Occult Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Melania Costantini; Rino Aldo Montella; Maria Paola Fadda; Giorgia Garganese; Alba Di Leone; Alejandro Martin Sanchez; Gianluca Franceschini; Pierluigi Maria Rinaldi
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2021-05-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.