RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study aimed to compare the average glandular dose (AGD) per acquisition in breast biopsies guided by contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), conventional stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The study also investigated the influence of compressed breast thickness (CBT) and density on AGD. Furthermore, the study aimed to estimate the AGD per procedure for each guidance modality. METHODS: The study included 163 female patients (mean age 57 ± 10 years) who underwent mammography-guided biopsies using SBB (9%), DBT (65%), or CEM (26%) guidance. AGD and CBT data were extracted from DICOM headers, and breast density was visually assessed. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-tests and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Mean AGD per acquisition varied slightly among CEM (1.48 ± 0.22 mGy), SBB (1.49 ± 0.40 mGy), and DBT (1.55 ± 0.47 mGy), with CEM presenting higher AGD at lower CBTs and less dose escalation at higher CBTs. For CBT > 55 mm, CEM showed reduced AGD compared to SBB and DBT (p < 0.001). Breast density had minimal impact on AGD, except for category A. The estimated AGD per procedure was approximately 11.84 mGy for CEM, 11.92 mGy for SBB, and 6.2 mGy for DBT. CONCLUSION: The study found mean AGD per acquisition to be similar for CEM and SBB, with DBT slightly higher. CEM demonstrated higher AGD at lower CBT but lower AGD at higher CBT, indicating reduced dose escalation with increasing thickness. While breast density had minimal overall impact, variations were noted in category A. DBT was more dose-efficient per procedure due to fewer acquisitions required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: CEM guidance provides effective lesion visualization within safe radiation limits, improving the precision of percutaneous image-guided breast interventions and supporting its potential consideration in a wider range of breast diagnostic procedures. KEY POINTS: Limited data exist on the AGD using CEM guidance for breast biopsies. CEM and SBB exhibit similar AGD per acquisition; DBT demonstrated the lowest AGD per procedure. Radiation from CEM guidance fits within safe limits for percutaneous image-guided breast interventions.
RESUMEN
Background: Some studies suggested that the patients included in the Z0011 trial may represent patients with ultrasound-negative axillary nodes and axillary invasion diagnosed by sentinel node (SN) biopsy. Nevertheless, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend SN mapping if 1 or 2 suspicious lymph nodes are identified on axillary ultrasound (AU). The aim of this preliminary phase of the Multimodal Targeted Axillary Surgery (MUTAS) trial was to establish the accuracy of SN mapping in patients with axillary involvement undergoing upfront surgery. Methods: Between September 2019 and March 2022, we recruited patients with biopsy-proven metastatic axillary nodes and upfront surgery from a single center. We performed SN mapping in these patients before the surgical intervention, which included axillary lymph node dissection. The biopsy-proven metastatic node, SNs and the remaining axillary nodes were excised separately. SN status was considered representative of the status of the remaining axillary nodes. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of the SN, overall and in patients with palpable nodes, in those with non-palpable nodes and an AU leading to diagnosis of axillary involvement, in those with 1 or 2 suspicious nodes on AU, and in patients with a single suspicious node on AU. We evaluated clinical, imaging and pathology features as predictors of the status of the remaining axillary nodes, false-negatives, and false-positives. Results: We included 25 patients in this phase. The false-negative rate of SN mapping was 28% overall, 21.42% for patients with palpable nodes, 36.36% for patients with non-palpable nodes and an AU diagnosis of axillary involvement, 28.75% for those with 1 or 2 suspicious nodes on AU, and 15.38% in patients with a single suspicious node on AU. The negative predictive value was highest in patients with a single suspicious node on AU (75%). The only significant predictive factor was that FN showed a higher Ki67 index score. Conclusions: In this study, SN mapping was not reliable in patients with biopsy-proven metastatic axillary nodes and upfront surgery for any of the subgroups studied. Further research should elucidate the best staging pathways in these patients to avoid premature de-escalation.
RESUMEN
The anatomic and histologic characteristics of the nipple-areolar complex make this breast region special. The nipple-areolar complex can be affected by abnormal development and a wide spectrum of pathological conditions, many of which have unspecific clinical and radiological presentations that can present a challenge for radiologists. The nipple-areolar complex requires a specific imaging workup in which a multimodal approach is essential. Radiologists need to know the different imaging modalities used to study the nipple-areolar complex, as well as their advantages and limitations. It is essential to get acquainted with the acquisition technique for each modality and the spectrum of findings for the different conditions. This review describes and illustrates a combined clinical and radiological approach to evaluate the nipple-areolar complex, emphasizing the findings for the normal morphology, developmental abnormalities, and the most common benign and malignant diseases that can affect this region. We also present a diagnostic algorithm that enables a rapid, practical approach to diagnosing condition involving the nipple-areolar complex.