Role of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography as a problem-solving tool in dense breasts: A case report

Abstract

Breast density is strongly and independently related to the risk of breast cancer. Women with very dense breasts may have up to five times higher chances of developing malignancy as compared to those with less breast density. Detecting lesions in extremely dense or heterogeneous breasts on screening mammogram can be difficult. We report a case of incidental bilateral breast malignancy in an asymptomatic patient in whom mammogram and screening ultrasound were equivocal.

Keywords

Contrast-enhanced digital mammogram - dense breast - dual-energy digital mammogram - mammogram

• References

• 1 McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: A meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1159-69.
• 2 Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: Results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670-5.
• 3 Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: Effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-9.
• 4 Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu MC, Rochard F, Opolon P, et al. Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis using contrast enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:W528-37.
• 5 Habel LA, Capra AM, Achacoso NS, Janga A, Acton L, Puligandla B, et al. Mammographic density and risk of second breast cancer after ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:2488-95.
• 6 Hwang ES, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Weaver DL, Kerlikowske K. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: Association between breast density and subsequent breast cancer following treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:2587-93.
• 7 Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE, Wray LA, Helvie MA. Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: Relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology 2004;230:42-8.
• 8 Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F, Muller S, Hamm B, Bick U. Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: Clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol 2005;40:397-404.
• 9 Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, Fallenberg EM, Jong RA, Koomen M, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R94.
• 10 Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 2011;21:565-74.
• 11 Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Initial clinical experience. Radiology 2003;228:842-50.
• 12 Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: Feasibility. Radiology 2003;229:261-8.
• 13 Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 2008;246:116-24.
• 14 Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, 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;266:743-51.