Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Radiol Imaging Cancer ; 6(4): e230186, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38847615

RESUMO

Purpose To develop a molecular breast imaging (MBI)-guided biopsy system using dual-detector MBI and to perform initial testing in participants. Materials and Methods The Stereo Navigator MBI Accessory biopsy system comprises a lower detector, upper fenestrated compression paddle, and upper detector. The upper detector retracts, allowing craniocaudal, oblique, or medial or lateral biopsy approaches. The compression paddle allows insertion of a needle guide and needle. Lesion depth is calculated by triangulation of lesion location on the upper detector at 0° and 15° and relative lesion activity on upper and lower detectors. In a prospective study (July 2022-June 2023), participants with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 2, 3, 4, or 5 breast lesions underwent MBI-guided biopsy. After injection of 740 MBq technetium 99m sestamibi, craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique MBI (2-minute acquisition per view) confirmed lesion visualization. A region of interest over the lesion permitted depth calculation in the system software. Upper detector retraction allowed biopsy device placement. Specimen images were obtained on the retracted upper detector, confirming sampling of the target. Results Of 21 participants enrolled (mean age, 50.6 years ± 10.1 [SD]; 21 [100%] women), 17 underwent MBI-guided biopsy with concordant pathology. No lesion was observed at the time of biopsy in four participants. Average lesion size was 17 mm (range, 6-38 mm). Average procedure time, including preprocedure imaging, was 55 minutes ± 13 (range, 38-90 minutes). Pathology results included invasive ductal carcinoma (n = 1), fibroadenoma (n = 4), pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (n = 6), and fibrocystic changes (n = 6). Conclusion MBI-guided biopsy using a dual-head system with retractable upper detector head was feasible, well tolerated, and efficient. Keywords: Breast Biopsy, Molecular Breast Imaging, Image-guided Biopsy, Molecular Breast Imaging-guided Biopsy, Breast Cancer Clinical trial registration no. NCT06058650 © RSNA, 2024.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem , Imagem Molecular , Tecnécio Tc 99m Sestamibi , Humanos , Feminino , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/métodos , Biópsia Guiada por Imagem/instrumentação , Adulto , Imagem Molecular/métodos , Imagem Molecular/instrumentação , Idoso , Compostos Radiofarmacêuticos , Mama/diagnóstico por imagem
2.
J Nucl Med Technol ; 52(2): 107-114, 2024 Jun 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38839120

RESUMO

Molecular breast imaging (MBI) is one of several options available to patients seeking supplemental screening due to mammographically dense breasts. Patient experience during MBI may influence willingness to undergo the test but has yet to be formally assessed. We aimed to assess patient comfort level during MBI, to compare MBI comfort with mammography comfort, to identify factors associated with MBI discomfort, and to evaluate patients' willingness to return for future MBI. Methods: A 10-question survey was sent by e-mail to patients undergoing MBI between August and December 2022 to obtain quantitative assessments and qualitative opinions about MBI. Results: Of 561 invited patients, 209 (37%) completed the survey and provided study consent. Their average age was 60.1 y (range, 40-81 y). Of the 209 responders, 202 (97%) were presenting for screening MBI, 195 (94%) had dense breasts, and 46 (22%) had a personal history of breast cancer. The average rating of MBI comfort was 2.9 (SD, 1.5; median, 3.0) on a 7-point scale (1 indicating extremely comfortable and 7 indicating extremely uncomfortable). The rating distribution was as follows: 140 (67%) comfortable (rating, 1-3); 24 (12%) neither comfortable nor uncomfortable (rating, 4); and 45 (22%) uncomfortable (rating, 5 or 6). No responders gave a 7 rating. The most frequently mentioned sources of discomfort included breast compression (n = 16), back or neck discomfort (n = 14), and maintaining position during the examination (n = 14). MBI comfort was associated with responder age (74% ≥55 y old were comfortable, versus 53% <55 y old [P = 0.003]) and history of MBI (71% with prior MBI were comfortable, versus 61% having a first MBI [P = 0.006]). Of 208 responders with a prior mammogram, 148 (71%) said MBI is more comfortable than mammography (a significant majority [P < 0.001]). Of 202 responders to the question of whether they were willing to return for a future MBI, 196 (97%) were willing. A notable factor in positive patient experience was interaction with the MBI nuclear medicine technologist. Conclusion: Most responders thought MBI to be a comfortable examination and more comfortable than mammography. Patient experience during MBI may be improved by ensuring back support and soliciting patient feedback at the time of positioning and throughout the examination. Methods under study to reduce imaging time may be most important for improving patient experience.


Assuntos
Imagem Molecular , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Adulto , Feminino , Inquéritos e Questionários , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Imagem Molecular/métodos , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Mamografia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA