References
- Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA A Cancer J Clinicians. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
- Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Intl Journal of Cancer. 2021;149(4):778-789. doi:10.1002/ijc.33588
- Kim J, Harper A, McCormack V, et al. Global patterns and trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality across 185 countries. Nat Med. 2025;31(4):1154-1162. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03502-3
- International Atomic Energy Agency. Worldwide Implementation of Digital Mammography Imaging, IAEA Human Health Series No. 46. Vienna: IAEA; 2023.
- Neeter LMFH, Raat HPJF, Alcantara R, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know. BJR Open. 2021;3(1):20210034. doi: 10.1259/bjro.20210034
- Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Subtraction Mammography: Feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261-268. doi:10.1148/radiol.2291021276
- Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2010;21(3):565-574. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1944-y
- Dromain C, Thibault F, Diekmann F, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(3). doi:10.1186/bcr3210
- Mokhtar O, Mahmoud S. Can contrast enhanced mammography solve the problem of dense breast lesions? The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2014;45(3):1043-1052. doi:10.1016/j.ejrnm.2014.04.007
- Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(2):371-381. doi:10.1007/s10549-014-3023-6
- Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(10):2394-2403. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1
- Ambicka A, Luczynska E, Adamczyk A, Harazin-Lechowska A, Sas-Korczynska B, Niemiec J. The tumour border on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and its relation to histological characteristics of invasive breast cancer. Pol J Pathol. 2016;3:295-299. doi:10.5114/pjp.2016.63783
- Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, et al. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1). doi:10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0
- Zhu X, Huang J Ming, Zhang K, et al. Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Screening Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e985-e995. doi:10.1016/j.clbc.2018.06.003
- Rudnicki W, Heinze S, Niemiec J, et al. Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology—preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(11):6220-6226. doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06232-6
- Rudnicki W, Piegza T, Rozum-Liszewska N, et al. The effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in dense breasts. Pol J Radiol. 2021;86:159-164. doi:10.5114/pjr.2021.104834
- Phillips J, Mihai G, Hassonjee SE, et al. Comparative Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM), Digital Mammography, and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2018;211(4):839-846. doi:10.2214/ajr.17.19036
- James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;208(2):362-372. doi:10.2214/ajr.16.16743
- Gennaro G, Vatteroni G, Bernardi D, Caumo F. Performance of dual-energy subtraction in contrast-enhanced mammography for three different manufacturers: a phantom study. Eur Radiol Exp. 2024;8(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s41747-024-00516-3
- Sanders JW, Pavlicek W, Stefan W, Hanson J, Sharpe RE, Patel BK. Digital Mammography, Tomosynthesis, and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Intraindividual Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose for Screening Examinations. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2025;224(3):e2432150. doi:10.2214/AJR.24.32150
- Nicosia L, Bozzini AC, Pesapane F, et al. Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting. Cancers. 2023;15(9):2413. doi:10.3390/cancers15092413
- European Commission: Directorate-General for Health and Consumers. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th Edition. Publications Office of the European Union; 2006.
- European Commission: Directorate-General for Health and Consumers. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. 4th Edition, Supplements. Publications Office of the European Union; 2013.
- Update Digital Mammography Protocol 01-2017. Corrections/Updates on: European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening chapter, 2b digital mammography. Accessed April 25, 2025. https://euref.org/download/update-digital-mammography-protocol-01-2017/
- Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC, Beckett JR, Kotre CJ. Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(11):3225-3240. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/308
- Dance DR, Young KC, van Engen RE. Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol. 2010;56(2):453-471. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/2/011
- Dance DR, Young KC. Estimation of mean glandular dose for contrast enhanced digital mammography: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2014;59(9):2127. doi: 0.1088/0031-9155/59/9/2127
- Di Maria S, van Nijnatten TJA, Jeukens CRLPN, Vedantham S, Dietzel M, Vaz P. Understanding the risk of ionizing radiation in breast imaging: Concepts and quantities, clinical importance, and future directions. European Journal of Radiology. 2024;181:111784. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111784
- Kisielewicz K, Rawojć K, Tulik M, et al. Comparison of Dose Received During Breast Cancer Diagnosis Performed by Using Two Different Imaging Modalities: Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Full-field Digital Mammography. Acta Phys Pol B. 2020;51(1):339. doi:10.5506/aphyspolb.51.339
- Dance DR, Sechopoulos I. Dosimetry in x-ray-based breast imaging. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2016;61(19):R271-304. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/19/r271
- Sechopoulos I, Dance DR, Boone JM, Bosmans HT, Caballo M, Diaz O, et al. Joint AAPM Task Group 282/EFOMP Working Group Report: Breast dosimetry for standard and contrast‐enhanced mammography and breast tomosynthesis. Medical Physics. 2023;51(2):712-39. doi: 10.1002/mp.16842