Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41670667›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Energy consumption of standard and contrast-enhanced mammography: a step towards sustainable breast imaging.

Gabriele Rossini, Kieran Lockey, Maxime Rokoszak, Marcella Pasculli, Carla Benstead, Fleur Kilburn-Toppin, Richard Hales, Jan Vosshenrich, Ferdia A Gallagher, Manuel Signorini and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Gabriele RossiniDepartment of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. gabriele.rossini@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-7910-1267
Kieran LockeyCapital, Estates & Facilities Management Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Maxime RokoszakCapital, Estates & Facilities Management Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Marcella PasculliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Sapienza-University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Carla BensteadCambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Fleur Kilburn-ToppinCambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Richard HalesCapital, Estates & Facilities Management Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Jan VosshenrichDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Ferdia A GallagherImaging, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Manuel SignoriniRadiology Department, ULSS 5 Polesana, Rovigo, Italy.
Elisabetta GiannottiCambridge Breast Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo quantify and compare the energy consumption of standard digital mammography (DM) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), assess differences across manufacturers, and identify strategies to improve energy efficiency. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective study measured direct energy consumption from three mammography systems across two vendors in a tertiary breast care centre. In total, 193 examinations were analysed: 79 on Machine A, 92 on Machine B, and 22 CEM exams on Machine C. Minute-by-minute power monitoring provided net and gross energy per exam. A multivariable regression model adjusted for machine type, exam characteristics, and patient variables. Daily-level analyses evaluated baseload energy relative to workload, and annual energy use was estimated via Monte Carlo simulations.

resultsMachine B consumed more net energy per exam but achieved the lowest gross energy use due to minimal standby power. Machine A showed lower net but higher gross energy, primarily from greater idle consumption. Machine C had comparable net energy to A but higher gross energy per exam as a consequence of fewer daily exams. Machine type was the dominant determinant of energy use, while exam type, breast thickness, and density had no significant impact. Higher daily exam volumes improved energy efficiency across all systems, particularly for C. Annual energy estimates ranged from ~1660 to 2300 kWh per machine, with B consistently most efficient.

conclusionMammography exhibits modest energy consumption, largely driven by standby operation rather than imaging activity. Vendor-specific differences exist, but DM and CEM show comparable net energy use. KEY POINTS: Question Measure the energy use of standard digital and CEM, evaluate energy efficiency across vendors, and identify ways to reduce energy consumption. Findings Mammography uses relatively little energy, mostly during idle time; energy efficiency varies by manufacturer, and CEM does not increase net energy demand. Clinical relevance Optimizing scheduling appointments, powering down machines after hours, and considering vendor efficiency can significantly cut the environmental footprint of breast imaging without compromising patient care.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsContrast MediaMammographyRadiographic Image EnhancementAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesContrast MediaCarbon dioxideClimate changeMammographyRadiology

Identifiers

PMID41670667
PMCPMC13282331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.