Evaluating the impact of delayed-phase imaging in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography on breast cancer staging: A comparative study of abbreviated versus complete protocol.

PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an innovative imaging tool for breast cancer detection, involving intravenous injection of a contrast medium and the assessment of lesion enhancement in two phases: early and delayed. The aim of the study was to analyze the topographic concordance of lesions detected in the early- versus delayed phase acquisitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approved by the Ethics Committee (No. 118/20), this prospective study included 100 women with histopathological confirmed breast neoplasia (B6) at the Radiodiagnostics Department of the Maggiore della Carità Hospital of Novara, Italy from May 1, 2021, to October 17, 2022. Participants underwent CEM examinations using a complete protocol, encompassing both early- and delayed image acquisitions. Three experienced radiologists blindly analyzed the CEM images for contrast enhancement to determine the topographic concordance of the identified lesions. Two readers assessed the complete study (protocol A), while one reader assessed the protocol without the delayed phase (protocol B). The average glandular dose (AGD) of the entire procedure was also evaluated. RESULTS: The analysis demonstrated high concordance among the three readers in the topographical identification of lesions within individual quadrants of both breasts, with a Cohen's κ > 0.75, except for the lower inner quadrant of the right breast and the retro-areolar region of the left breast. The mean whole AGD was 29.2 mGy. The mean AGD due to CEM amounted to 73% of the whole AGD (21.2 mGy). The AGD attributable to the delayed phase of CEM contributed to 36% of the whole AGD (10.5 mGy). CONCLUSIONS: As we found no significant discrepancy between the readings of the two protocols, we conclude that delayed-phase image acquisition in CEM does not provide essential diagnostic benefits for effective disease management. Instead, it contributes to unnecessary radiation exposure.

Effective and organ doses in patient undergoing interventional neuroradiology procedures: A multicentre study.

PURPOSE: Radiation doses to adult patients submitted to cerebral angiography and intracranial aneurysms treatments were assessed by using DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Reports (RDSR) and Monte Carlo simulations. Conversion factors to estimate effective and organ doses from Kerma-Area Product (PKA) values were determined. METHODS: 77 cerebral procedures performed with five angiographic equipment installed in three Italian centres were analyzed. Local settings and acquisition protocols were considered. The geometrical, technical and dosimetric data of 16,244 irradiation events (13305 fluoroscopy, 2811 digital subtraction angiography, 128 cone-beam CT) were extracted from RDSRs by local dose monitoring systems and were input in MonteCarlo PCXMC software to calculate effective and organ doses. Finally, conversion factors to determine effective and organ doses from PKA were determined. Differences between centres were assessed through statistical analysis and accuracy of dose calculation method based on conversion factors was assessed through Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Large variations in PKA (14-561 Gycm2) and effective dose (1.2-73.5 mSv) were observed due to different degrees of complexity in the procedures and angiographic system technology. The most exposed organs were brain, salivary glands, oral mucosa, thyroid and skeleton. The study highlights the importance of recent technology in reducing patient exposure (about fourfold, even more in DSA). No statistically significant difference was observed in conversion factors between centres, except for some organs. A conversion factor of 0.09 ± 0.02 mSv/Gycm2 was obtained for effective dose. CONCLUSIONS: Organ and effective doses were assessed for neuro-interventional procedures. Conversion factors for calculating effective and organ doses from PKA were provided.

Optimisation of protection in the medical exposure of recurrent adult patients due to computed tomography procedures: development of recurrent exposures reference levels.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence (1 year) and the cumulative incidence (3 years) of the condition of patients accruing cumulative effective doses (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv and their variability among different hospitals. To establish and validate a reference level for the CED in patients with recurrent exposures (RERL) and provide a RERL value. METHODS: Data of CT exposure was collected in 9 similar hospitals. The database included 294,222 patient*years who underwent 442,278 CT exams in 3 years. The incidence proportion of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv in a given year (I100;1) and the 3-year cumulative incidence of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv over 3 consecutive years (I100;3) were calculated and compared among different institutions. RESULTS: I100;1 ranged from a minimum of 0.1% to a maximum of 5.1%. The percentage of recurrent patients was quite uniform among centres ranging from 23 to 38%. The I100;3 ranged from a minimum of 1.1 to 11.4%. There was a strong positive correlation between the third quartile values of yearly CED and yearly incidence (r = 0.90; R2 = 0.81; p < 0.0001). RERL value in our study was found at 34.0 mSv. CONCLUSION: The management of patients with recurrent exposures is highly variable among hospitals leading to a 50-fold variation in I100;1 and to a tenfold variation in I100;3. RERL could be established and used by taking as a RERL quantity the CED and as a RERL value the 75th percentile of the third quartiles of the distribution of the yearly CED obtained by surveying different hospitals. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This is the first ever multicentre study that quantifies recurrent exposures in terms of incidence and cumulative incidence of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv. RERL establishment and use could benefit the optimisation of radioprotection of patients with recurrent exposures. KEY POINTS: This is the first multicentre study estimating yearly incidence and 3-year cumulative incidence of patients with cumulative effective doses ≥ 100 mSv. In this study, a 50-fold inter centre variation between the maximum (5.1%) and the minimum value (0.1%) of yearly incidence of patients with cumulative effective doses ≥ 100 mSv was reported. The range of the 3-year cumulative incidence extended from 1.1 to 11.4% (a tenfold variation) The third quartile of the yearly cumulative effective doses in a centre showed a strong positive correlation with the yearly incidence of patients with cumulative effective doses ≥ 100 mSv, with a potential of being used to set reference levels for recurrent exposures.