Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance.
Alcantara, Rodrigo; Azcona, Javier; Pitarch, Mireia; Arenas, Natalia; Castells, Xavier; Milioni, Pablo; Iotti, Valentina; Besutti, Giulia.
Afiliação
  • Alcantara R; Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 1714150@uab.cat.
  • Azcona J; Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain. 1714150@uab.cat.
  • Pitarch M; Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Arenas N; Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Castells X; Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Milioni P; Department of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
  • Iotti V; Epidemiology and Evaluation Department, Hospital del Mar Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain.
  • Besutti G; Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network (REDISSEC), Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Eur Radiol ; 2024 Aug 14.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39143245
ABSTRACT

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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article