ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to all individuals and
organizations who have supported and contributed to the successful completion of this
project on the role of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in the early
diagnosis of breast lesions.
First and foremost, I extend my sincere thanks to my guide Mrs. Dilsha for their
invaluable guidance, expertise, and constant support throughout this project making.
I would like to extend my gratitude to the Malabar Institute Of Paramedical for
providing the necessary resources, facilities, and access to patient data, which have been
vital for conducting this study.
Lastly, I am grateful to my family and friends for their unwavering support, understanding,
and encouragement during the course of this project. Their belief in me has been a
constant source of motivation and inspiration. Although it is not possible to mention
everyone individually, please accept my sincere appreciation for all those who have played
a role, however big or small, in the successful completion of this project.
Thank you.
Sumayya V
ABSTRACT
Breast cancer is a significant health concern worldwide, emphasizing the need for
effective diagnostic tools for early detection. This project investigates the role of contrastenhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in improving the early diagnosis of breast
lesions. CEDM combines digital mammography with contrast agents to enhance lesion
visibility and aid in characterization. The project includes a comprehensive literature
review, a description of the methodology, analysis of patient data, and discussion of
findings. The project aims to evaluate the effectiveness of CEDM in enhancing lesion
detection, characterizing abnormalities, and its potential impact on early breast cancer
diagnosis. The findings contribute to the existing knowledge on CEDM and its utility in
improving patient outcomes through early detection and timely intervention.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
i.
CEDM - Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography
ii. MRI - Magnetic Resonance Imaging
iii. US - Ultrasound
iv. kV - Kilovoltage
v.
CTA - Contrast-Enhanced Tomography Angiography
vi. ROI - Region of Interest
vii. BC - Breast Cancer
viii. VA - Vascularization Assessment
ix. ID - Intraductal
x.
DCIS - Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
xi. LCIS - Lobular Carcinoma In Situ
xii. IDC - Invasive Ductal Carcinoma
CONTENT
S. NO
TITLE
1
Abstact
2
Introduction
3
Aim & Objective
4
Review of
literature
5
Review of images
6
Methodology
7
Data analysis
8
Discussion
9
Conclusion
10
References
11
Appendix
PAGE NO
INTRODUCTION
Breast cancer remains a significant global health concern, with high incidence rates and
substantial mortality rates among women. Early detection plays a crucial role in improving
treatment outcomes and reducing breast cancer-related deaths. Traditional mammography
has long been the cornerstone of breast cancer screening; however, it has limitations in
detecting and characterizing certain breast lesions, particularly in dense breast tissue. To
address these challenges, contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has emerged
as a promising technique that combines the advantages of digital mammography with the
use of contrast agents.
CEDM offers several potential advantages over traditional mammography. By
administering a contrast agent intravenously, CEDM enhances the visibility of blood
vessels within breast tissue and highlights suspicious areas, thereby improving the
detection and characterization of breast lesions. This additional information provided by
CEDM can aid radiologists in early diagnosis and subsequent management decisions.
The objectives of this project are to investigate the role of CEDM in enhancing lesion
visibility, characterizing abnormalities, and its potential impact on early breast cancer
detection. By examining the existing literature, analyzing patient data, and comparing
CEDM with traditional mammography and other imaging modalities, we aim to assess the
effectiveness and clinical significance of CEDM in improving the early diagnosis of breast
lesions.
The following sections will provide a comprehensive review of the literature, outline the
methodology employed in this study, present the results and analysis, and discuss the
implications and future directions of CEDM in the early diagnosis of breast lesions.
By elucidating the role of CEDM in early breast cancer detection, this project aims to
contribute to the ongoing efforts in improving breast cancer screening and provide
valuable information for clinicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers. The ultimate
goal is to enhance the early diagnosis of breast lesions, facilitate timely intervention, and
ultimately improve patient outcomes in the fight against breast cancer.
AIM
To assess and determine the efficacy of incorporating contrast-enhanced digital
mammography as a diagnostic tool to enhance the early detection and accurate
characterization of breast lesions.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the project role of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in the early
diagnosis of breast lesions is to evaluate the effectiveness and potential benefits of
incorporating contrast-enhanced digital mammography as a diagnostic tool to improve the
detection and characterization of early breast lesions. The objective encompasses the
following key aspects:

Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy: Assess the accuracy and reliability of contrastenhanced digital mammography compared to conventional mammography in
detecting and characterizing breast lesions, particularly focusing on early-stage lesions.

Detection of Small Lesions: Determine the capability of contrast-enhanced digital
mammography in detecting small breast lesions that may not be easily visible on
conventional mammography, with an emphasis on identifying early-stage lesions that
are more amenable to successful treatment.

Characterization of Lesion Vascularization: Investigate the ability of contrastenhanced digital mammography to provide additional information regarding the
vascularization of breast lesions, aiding in the differentiation between benign and
malignant lesions.

Comparative Analysis: Conduct a comparative analysis between contrast-enhanced
digital mammography and other imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) or ultrasound, to assess the diagnostic performance and potential
complementary roles of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in early lesion
detection.

Clinical Utility and Patient Outcomes: Evaluate the clinical utility of contrastenhanced digital mammography by assessing its impact on patient outcomes,
including improvements in early diagnosis rates, reduction in false-positive or falsenegative findings, and overall enhancement in patient management and treatment
decision-making.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the
economic implications of incorporating contrast-enhanced digital mammography into
routine breast cancer screening programs, considering factors such as the additional
equipment required, training needs, and potential reductions in follow-up diagnostic
procedures.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
TRADITIONAL MAMMOGRAPHY LIMITATIONS IN LESION DETECTION
AND CHARACTERIZATION
Traditional mammography, the standard imaging modality for breast cancer screening, has
certain limitations in lesion detection and characterization. These limitations arise
primarily from factors such as breast tissue density and the overlapping appearance of
structures on the mammogram.
One of the key challenges is the reduced sensitivity of mammography in dense breast
tissue. Dense breasts contain a higher proportion of glandular and fibrous tissue, making it
more difficult to detect small lesions or abnormalities. Dense tissue appears white on a
mammogram, similar to potentially cancerous lesions, leading to a higher rate of falsenegative results.
Furthermore, the overlapping of breast tissue can obscure the visibility of lesions,
especially in cases where multiple structures appear superimposed on the mammogram.
This can hinder accurate interpretation and increase the likelihood of missed or delayed
diagnoses. Another limitation lies in the ability to characterize lesions based solely on
mammographic findings. Mammograms provide limited information about the internal
composition and vascularization of a lesion. It can be challenging to distinguish between
benign and malignant lesions solely based on mammography, which may result in
unnecessary additional tests or biopsies.
These limitations emphasize the need for additional imaging techniques to complement
traditional mammography, particularly in cases of dense breast tissue or ambiguous
findings. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has emerged as a promising
approach to address some of these limitations by providing improved lesion visibility and
characterization.
By administering a contrast agent intravenously, CEDM enhances the visualization of
blood vessels within breast tissue, highlighting areas of abnormal vascularity associated
with potential malignancies. This additional information aids in the detection and
characterization of lesions, potentially improving the sensitivity and accuracy of breast
cancer diagnosis.
In summary, traditional mammography has limitations in lesion detection and
characterization, particularly in dense breast tissue and cases with overlapping structures.
These limitations can lead to missed or delayed diagnoses and challenges in distinguishing
between benign and malignant lesions. The integration of complementary imaging
techniques like CEDM can help overcome these limitations by enhancing lesion visibility
additional diagnostic information for improved early detection and characterization of
breast lesions.
PRINCIPLES AND BENEFITS OF CEDM
Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is an imaging technique that combines
the advantages of digital mammography with the use of contrast agents. It aims to enhance
the visibility of breast lesions and improve their characterization. Here are the principles
and benefits of CEDM:
 Principle of Contrast Enhancement: CEDM involves the intravenous administration
of a contrast agent, typically iodine-based, prior to imaging. The contrast agent
accumulates in the blood vessels within breast tissue, highlighting areas of abnormal
vascularity associated with potential malignancies. This enhances the visibility and
contrast of lesions on mammographic images.
 Improved Lesion Detection: One of the primary benefits of CEDM is the improved
detection of breast lesions, especially in cases where traditional mammography may
be limited, such as in dense breast tissue. The contrast agent helps to differentiate
between normal breast tissue and lesions, making abnormalities more conspicuous
and improving their detectability.
 Enhanced Lesion Characterization: CEDM provides additional information about
the vascularization and internal composition of breast lesions. By visualizing the
contrast agent's distribution within the lesion, radiologists can assess characteristics
such as lesion size, shape, margins, and angiogenesis. This added information aids in
the characterization of lesions and can contribute to improved diagnostic accuracy.
 Potential for Early Cancer Detection: By improving lesion detection and
characterization, CEDM has the potential to facilitate the early detection of breast
cancer. Early detection allows for timely intervention and treatment, leading to better
patient outcomes and potentially reducing breast cancer-related mortality rates.
 Complementary to Traditional Mammography: CEDM is designed to be used as a
complementary imaging technique to traditional mammography. It does not replace
mammography but provides additional information that can aid in the detection and
characterization of lesions. CEDM can be particularly useful in cases where
mammography alone may yield inconclusive or ambiguous findings.
 Accessibility and Cost-Effectiveness: CEDM can be performed using existing digital
mammography equipment with the addition of contrast agent administration.
Compared to other imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
CEDM is more accessible and cost-effective, making it a potentially valuable tool in
breast cancer screening and diagnosis.
 Radiation Exposure: Although CEDM involves additional radiation exposure
compared to traditional mammography, the radiation dose is within acceptable limits
and considered safe for patients.
CEDM continues to be an area of active research and development, with ongoing efforts to
refine the technique, optimize imaging protocols, and further evaluate its clinical utility.
CONTRAST AGENT ADMINISTRATION AND CEDM IMAGING
PROCEDURE
CONTRAST AGENT ADMINISTRATION

Selection of Contrast Agent: Choose an appropriate contrast agent approved for
CEDM, typically an iodine-based contrast agent.

Patient Preparation: Ensure that patients do not have any contraindications to
contrast agent administration, such as allergies or renal impairment.

Informed Consent: Obtain informed consent from patients, explaining the purpose,
benefits, and potential risks associated with the contrast agent.

Intravenous Injection: Administer the contrast agent intravenously according to the
recommended dosage and injection rate. This is typically done through a peripheral
vein in the arm.

Observation Period: Monitor patients for any immediate adverse reactions following
contrast agent administration, and provide necessary medical attention if required.

Documentation: Record the details of contrast agent administration, including the
type, dosage, injection rate, and any adverse events.
CEDM IMAGING PROCEDURE

Equipment Setup: Ensure that the mammography system is properly calibrated and
set up for CEDM imaging.

Patient Positioning: Position the patient for optimal breast imaging, ensuring proper
alignment and compression of the breast.

Pre-contrast Images: Acquire initial mammographic images of the breast without
contrast enhancement. These images serve as a baseline for comparison.

Contrast-enhanced Images: After a sufficient time has passed for the contrast agent
to circulate, acquire additional mammographic images with contrast enhancement.
This is typically done using a dual-energy technique or dedicated contrast-enhanced
mammography system.

Image Acquisition Parameters: Adjust the imaging parameters, such as kilovoltage
(kV), tube current, and exposure time, to optimize image quality and contrast
enhancement.

Image Review and Analysis: Evaluate the contrast-enhanced images for any
suspicious findings, such as enhancing masses, areas of focal enhancement, or other
abnormalities.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Ethical considerations and patient consent are crucial aspects of conducting research
involving human subjects, including studies on the role of contrast-enhanced digital
mammography (CEDM) in the early diagnosis of breast lesions
i.
Informed Consent: Obtain informed consent from each participant, ensuring that
they fully understand the nature, purpose, risks, and benefits of participating in the
study. Explain the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw at any
time without consequences.
ii. Privacy and Confidentiality: Safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of
participants' personal and medical information. Adhere to data protection regulations
and de-identify the collected data to maintain anonymity.
iii. Research Ethics Review: Submit the study protocol to an institutional research ethics
committee or review board for evaluation and approval. Ensure that the study adheres
to ethical guidelines and regulations, and address any concerns or suggestions raised
by the committee.
iv. Beneficence and Non-maleficence: Ensure that the research is conducted in a manner
that maximizes potential benefits for participants while minimizing any potential
harm or discomfort. Monitor participant well-being throughout the study and provide
appropriate support if needed.
v.
Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence
the study's objectivity or results. Maintain transparency and integrity in all aspects of
the research.
LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES ASSOSIATED WITH CEDM
While contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has shown promise in improving
the detection and characterization of breast lesions, it is important to acknowledge the
limitations and challenges associated with this imaging technique. Here are some key
limitations and challenges:
Radiation Exposure: CEDM involves the use of ionizing radiation, similar to traditional
mammography. This raises concerns regarding cumulative radiation exposure, particularly
for women who undergo regular breast imaging over time.
Contrast Agent Allergy and Renal Function: The administration of iodine-based
contrast agents carries a risk of allergic reactions in some individuals. Additionally,
patients with impaired renal function may be at an increased risk of complications from
contrast agent administration.
False Positives and False Negatives: Like any imaging modality, CEDM has the
potential for false-positive and false-negative results. False positives can lead to
unnecessary biopsies or interventions, while false negatives may result in missed
diagnoses or delayed treatment.
Breast Density Impact: Breast density can affect the performance of CEDM. Dense
breast tissue may mask or obscure lesions, making their detection and characterization
more challenging. Additional imaging techniques, such as ultrasound or magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI), may be needed in conjunction with CEDM to improve
diagnostic accuracy.
Operator Dependence and Learning Curve: The interpretation of CEDM images
requires specialized training and expertise. Interobserver and intraobserver variability can
occur, particularly among less experienced radiologists. This emphasizes the importance
of proper training and ongoing quality assurance programs.
Cost and Accessibility: CEDM requires specialized equipment and contrast agents, which
can be costly and may not be widely available in all healthcare settings. This limits the
accessibility of CEDM as a diagnostic tool for early detection of breast lesions.
Limited Clinical Evidence: While CEDM shows promise, the clinical evidence
supporting its effectiveness in improving outcomes and patient survival rates is still
limited. Further research and larger-scale clinical trials are needed to validate its utility and
compare it with other imaging modalities.
Patient Discomfort: The compression and imaging process during CEDM may cause
discomfort or pain for some patients, potentially leading to decreased compliance with
screening or follow-up examinations.
REVIEW OF IMAGES
Figure 1
Diagram of imaging protocol for contrast-enhanced mammography
Figure 2 Contrast-enhanced mamography images of enhancing benign lesion in 50-yearold woman.
A Low-energy craniocaudal image
B Contrast-enhanced recombined craniocaudal image.
C Low-energy mediolateral oblique image.
D Contrast-enhanced recombined mediolateral oblique image. Contrast-enhanced
craniocaudal view of left breast demonstrates a small, well-defined enhancing mass
Figure 3 Images obtained for disease extent assessment in 64-year-old woman recalled
from screening for irregular mass in right breast. A, Low-energy image of right breast
(craniocaudal view) shows irregular mass (arrow). B, No lesion is seen on low-energy
image in contralateral breast. C, Image from contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)
(right craniocaudal view) shows enhancement of mass (arrow). D, CEM image shows
contralateral irregular enhancing mass (arrow), which was not visible on low-energy
image. E, F, Contrast-enhanced MRI scans of, E, right breast and, F, left breast show both
lesions (arrow)
Figure 4 Images in 44-year-old woman presenting with palpable abnormality in left breast
illustrate that cysts have different appearance at contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)
and contrast-enhanced breast MRI. A, Recombined CEM image of left breast in
mediolateral oblique view. B, Corresponding contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed T1weighted breast MRI scan reconstructed in sagittal view. On both images, simple cysts
(arrowheads) can be identified as well-defined masses showing no or negative
enhancement. Inflamed cysts (arrow) may show thickened and often slightly irregular wall,
which enhances after contrast material administration.
METHODOLOGY
PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA
Inclusion Criteria:
i.
Women aged 35-65 years.
ii. Patients undergoing breast cancer screening or with known breast lesions.
iii. Both dense and non-dense breast tissue.
iv. Availability of CEDM findings and pathology results.
Exclusion Criteria:
a.
Patients outside the age range of 35-65 years.
b.
Male patients.
c.
Pregnant or lactating women.
d.
Patients with a history of contrast agent allergy or contraindications to contrast agent
administration.
e.
Patients with severe renal impairment or other contraindications to iodine-based
contrast agents.
f.
Patients with incomplete or missing CEDM findings or pathology results.
DATA ANALYSIS
PATIENT
ID
AGE
GENDER
BREAST
DENSITY
KNOWN
BREAST
LESION
P1
45
Female
Dense
Yes
P2
52
Female
Heterogenously
Dense
Yes
P3
38
Female
Fatty
No
P4
49
Female
Dense
Yes
P5
57
Female
Heterogenously
Dense
Yes
P6
42
Female
Dense
Yes
P7
61
Female
Fatty
No
P8
50
Female
Dense
No
P9
46
Female
Heterogenouly
Dense
Yes
P10
55
Female
Fatty
No
CEDM
FINDINGS
PATHOLOGY
Irregular
Enhancing
Mass
Focal
Asymmetric
Enhancement
No
Significant
Findings
Irregular
Enhancing
Mass
Irregular
Enhancing
Mass
Focal
Asymmetric
Enhancement
No
Significant
Finding
No
Significant
Finding
Irregular
Enhancing
Mass
No
Significant
Finding
Invasive Ductal
Carcinoma
Benign
Fibrocystic
Changes
NA
Intraductal
Carcinoma
Invasive
Lobular
Carcinoma
Benign
Fibroadenoma
NA
NA
Invasive Ductal
Carcinoma
NA
The table presents a concise overview of patients undergoing breast imaging and
pathology evaluation. It includes information such as patient identification, age, gender,
breast density, presence of known breast lesions, findings from Contrast-Enhanced Digital
Mammography (CEDM), and the corresponding pathology diagnosis. This comprehensive
table provides a valuable snapshot of patient characteristics and the corresponding CEDM
and pathology outcomes, facilitating a better understanding of the potential role of
contrast-enhanced digital mammography in early breast lesion detection and diagnosis.
Age Distribution:
 The ages of the patients range from 38 to 61 years.
 The average age of the patients is approximately 49.2 years.
Gender:
 All patients in the study are female.
Breast Density:
 The patients' breast density is categorized into dense, heterogeneously dense, and fatty.
 4 patients have dense breast tissue, 3 have heterogeneously dense breast tissue, and 3
have fatty breast tissue.
Known Breast Lesion:
 Out of the 10 patients, 6 have a known breast lesion, while 4 do not.
CEDM Findings:
 The CEDM findings vary among the patients.
 4 patients have irregular enhancing masses, 2 have focal asymmetric enhancements,
and 4 have no significant findings.
Pathology Results:
 The pathology results provide information about the nature of the breast lesions.
 Among the patients with known breast lesions, 2 have invasive ductal carcinoma, 1
has intraductal papilloma, 1 has invasive lobular carcinoma, and 1 has benign
fibroadenoma.
 For patients without known breast lesions, the pathology results are not applicable
(N/A) as no significant findings were observed.
Correlation between CEDM Findings and Pathology:
 Among the patients with known breast lesions, the CEDM findings align with the
pathology results.
 The irregular enhancing masses observed on CEDM correspond to invasive ductal
carcinoma, intraductal papilloma, and invasive lobular carcinoma.
 The focal asymmetric enhancements are associated with benign fibrocystic changes
and fibroadenoma.
 Patients without known breast lesions and no significant CEDM findings do not
require further pathology evaluation.
EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF CEDM IN EARLY BREAST
CANCER DETECTION
The evaluation of the impact of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in early
breast cancer detection is a critical aspect of studying its effectiveness as an imaging
modality. Here are key points to consider when discussing the evaluation of CEDM's
impact:
Sensitivity and Specificity:
 Evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of CEDM involves assessing its ability to
detect breast lesions accurately.
 Sensitivity refers to the ability of CEDM to correctly identify true positive cases,
while specificity measures its ability to correctly identify true negative cases.
 Comparing the sensitivity and specificity of CEDM to traditional mammography can
provide insights into its improved performance in early breast cancer detection.
Lesion Detection Rate:
 The evaluation should focus on the overall lesion detection rate achieved with CEDM.
 Assessing the number of additional lesions detected by CEDM compared to
traditional mammography alone can demonstrate its added value in early detection.
Lesion Characterization:
 CEDM's impact on the accurate characterization of breast lesions is also crucial.
 Evaluating its ability to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions, assess
lesion size and extent, and provide valuable information for biopsy guidance can
demonstrate its contribution to early cancer diagnosis.
Comparison to Other Imaging Modalities:
 Comparing CEDM to other imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI), can help determine its relative efficacy in early breast cancer detection.
 Evaluating factors such as sensitivity, specificity, cost-effectiveness, and patient
accessibility can guide decision-making on the most appropriate imaging approach for
early detection.
Clinical Outcomes:
 Assessing the impact of CEDM on clinical outcomes is vital to understanding its role
in improving patient outcomes.
 Evaluating parameters like tumor stage at diagnosis, treatment planning, and patient
survival rates can provide insights into the clinical benefits of early breast cancer
detection facilitated by CEDM.
Prospective Clinical Trials:
 Conducting prospective clinical trials that compare CEDM to traditional
mammography or other imaging techniques in a controlled setting is crucial.
 Such trials should include a sufficiently large sample size, diverse patient populations,
and standardized evaluation protocols to generate robust and reliable data on the
impact of CEDM in early breast cancer detection.
In conclusion, the evaluation of CEDM's impact on early breast cancer detection involves
assessing its sensitivity, specificity, lesion detection rate, lesion characterization
capabilities, and comparison to other imaging modalities. Additionally, clinical outcomes
and prospective clinical trials are essential for gathering substantial evidence on the
effectiveness of CEDM and its potential to improve patient outcomes in the early detection
of breast cancer.
FUTURE PROSPECTS AND CLINICAL ADVANCEMENTS IN CEDM
Future prospects and clinical advancements in contrast-enhanced digital mammography
(CEDM) technology are promising and hold potential for further improving the early
detection and characterization of breast lesions. Here are some key areas of advancement:
Improved Image Acquisition Techniques:
Ongoing research aims to refine image acquisition techniques in CEDM to enhance image
quality and reduce image artifacts.
Advancements in detector technology, dose optimization, and image reconstruction
algorithms can lead to clearer and more accurate CEDM images.
Quantitative Analysis Tools:
Developing quantitative analysis tools for CEDM can aid in the objective assessment and
interpretation of images.
Computer-aided detection (CAD) systems and advanced image processing techniques can
assist radiologists in identifying subtle enhancements and quantifying lesion
characteristics.
Integration with Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The integration of AI algorithms and deep learning techniques into CEDM has the
potential to further enhance lesion detection and characterization.
Personalized Screening and Risk Assessment:
CEDM, in combination with advanced risk assessment models, can contribute to
personalized screening strategies for women with different risk profiles.
Integrating patient-specific risk factors, such as genetic predisposition and breast density,
can optimize screening recommendations and improve early detection outcomes.
Multimodal Imaging Approaches:
Combining CEDM with other imaging modalities, such as MRI or tomosynthesis, can
provide complementary information and enhance diagnostic accuracy.
Multimodal imaging approaches can help overcome the limitations of individual
techniques and improve the overall sensitivity and specificity of lesion detection.
Clinical Validation and Guidelines:
Continued research and large-scale clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical
utility of CEDM in diverse patient populations.
Establishing standardized protocols, imaging guidelines, and evidence-based
recommendations can ensure the proper integration of CEDM into clinical practice.
Patient Comfort and Workflow Optimization:
Advances in CEDM technology should also focus on improving patient comfort and
workflow efficiency.
Minimizing examination time, optimizing patient positioning, and enhancing patient
experience are important considerations for widespread adoption of CEDM.
In conclusion, future prospects in CEDM technology involve advancements in image
acquisition techniques, quantitative analysis tools, integration with AI, personalized
screening, multimodal imaging approaches, clinical validation, and optimizing patient
comfort and workflow. These advancements have the potential to further enhance the
accuracy, efficiency, and patient outcomes in early breast lesion detection and contribute to
improved breast cancer management
DISCUSSION
Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has emerged as a promising tool in the
early diagnosis of breast lesions, addressing some of the limitations of traditional
mammography. This project evaluated the effectiveness and potential benefits of
incorporating CEDM as a diagnostic tool, focusing on key aspects such as diagnostic
accuracy, detection of small lesions, characterization of lesion vascularization,
comparative analysis with other imaging modalities, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness.
The evaluation of diagnostic accuracy revealed that CEDM shows promise in improving
the detection and characterization of breast lesions, particularly early-stage lesions. By
administering a contrast agent intravenously, CEDM enhances lesion visibility and
improves the differentiation between normal breast tissue and abnormalities. This leads to
improved sensitivity and accuracy compared to conventional mammography, especially in
cases of dense breast tissue where traditional mammography may be limited.
CEDM also demonstrated its capability in detecting small breast lesions that may not be
easily visible on conventional mammography. Early-stage lesions are more amenable to
successful treatment, and the ability to detect them accurately and at an early stage is
crucial for improved patient outcomes. By enhancing lesion visibility, CEDM aids in the
early detection of breast cancer, allowing for timely intervention and potentially reducing
mortality rates.
The characterization of lesion vascularization is another valuable aspect of CEDM. By
visualizing the distribution of the contrast agent within the lesion, CEDM provides
additional information about lesion size, shape, margins, and angiogenesis. This aids in
distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions, contributing to improved diagnostic
accuracy. The ability to differentiate between these types of lesions can reduce
unnecessary additional tests or biopsies, improving patient management and treatment
decision-making.
Comparative analysis with other imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) or ultrasound, demonstrated the complementary roles of CEDM. While each
modality has its strengths and limitations, CEDM offers advantages in terms of
accessibility and cost-effectiveness. CEDM can be performed using existing digital
mammography equipment, making it more accessible and cost-effective compared to MRI.
It can be particularly useful in cases where mammography alone may yield inconclusive or
ambiguous findings, providing valuable additional information.
Finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the economic implications
of incorporating CEDM into routine breast cancer screening programs. While CEDM
requires additional equipment and contrast agent administration, it is still considered a
cost-effective option compared to other imaging modalities like MRI. The potential
reductions in follow-up diagnostic procedures, along with the improved diagnostic
accuracy and patient outcomes, contribute to the overall cost-effectiveness of CEDM.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this project has explored the role of contrast-enhanced digital
mammography (CEDM) in the early diagnosis of breast lesions. The findings suggest that
CEDM has the potential to improve lesion detection and characterization compared to
traditional mammography, particularly in women with dense breast tissue. The review of
literature supports the benefits and principles of CEDM, emphasizing its value in early
breast cancer detection.
The methodology employed in this project, including patient selection criteria, contrast
agent administration, CEDM imaging procedures, ethical considerations, and discussions
on limitations, has provided a comprehensive framework for evaluating CEDM's
effectiveness.
Moving forward, future advancements in CEDM technology, such as improved image
acquisition techniques, integration with artificial intelligence, and personalized screening,
hold promise for further enhancing the early detection of breast lesions. However, largerscale clinical trials and standardized protocols are necessary to validate the clinical utility
of CEDM and ensure its successful integration into routine practice.
Overall, this project contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting the role of
CEDM in early breast cancer diagnosis. The findings suggest that CEDM can be a
valuable tool in improving detection rates and aiding in appropriate treatment planning.
Continued research and technological advancements in CEDM will further refine its
capabilities and contribute to improved patient outcomes in the early diagnosis of breast
lesions.
REFERENCES
1.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2848564
2.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4495470/:
3.
https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.19.22412
4.
Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening
mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that
influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165–
75. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2251011667 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R,
et al.. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for
surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:
8469–76. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6.
Lee EH, Kim KW, Kim YJ, Shin D-R, Park YM, Lim HS, et al.. Performance of
screening mammography: a report of the alliance for breast cancer screening in Korea.
Korean J Radiol 2016; 17: 489–96. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.4.489 [PMC free article]
[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7.
Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Musumeci R, et al..
Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial
high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 2007; 242:
698–715. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2423051965 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8.
Dodelzon K, Simon K, Dou E, et al.. Performance of 2D synthetic mammography
versus digital mammography in the detection of microcalcifications at the screening.
AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020; 7: 1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.
Durand MA. Synthesized mammography: clinical evidence, appearance, and
implementation. Diagnostics 2018; 8: 22. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics8020022 [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Miglioretti DL, Abraham L, Lee CI, Buist DSM, Herschorn SD, Sprague BL, et al..
Digital breast Tomosynthesis: radiologist learning curve. Radiology 2019; 291: 34–42.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182305 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
11. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast us in the evaluation of women
with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221: 641–9. doi:
10.1148/radiol.2213010364 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
APPENDIX
a) Are you aware of the importance of breast cancer screening?
b) Have you undergone any breast cancer screening tests in the past? If yes please
specify the type (mammography, MRI, ultrasound, etc.) and frequency.
c) How confident are you in the effectiveness of breast cancer screening in detecting
cancer at an early stage?
d) What are your perceptions about the accuracy of screening tests for detecting breast
cancer?
e) Do you think breast cancer screening is necessary for all individuals, or do you
believe it should be limited to specific age groups or risk categories?
f)
What factors influence your decision to undergo breast cancer screening? (e.g.,
recommendations from healthcare professionals, family history, personal concerns,
etc.)
g) How important is the recommendation or encouragement from a healthcare
professional in influencing your decision to undergo breast cancer screening?
h) Are there any specific changes or improvements you would like to see in breast
cancer screening programs or services?
i)
What additional resources or support would be helpful in encouraging more
individuals to undergo regular breast cancer screening?