Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technical feasibility and first outcomes.
Biopsy
Breast neoplasms
Contrast media
Feasibility studies
Mammography
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
02
03
2022
accepted:
30
06
2022
revised:
23
05
2022
pubmed:
28
7
2022
medline:
20
12
2022
entrez:
27
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy at Hospital del Mar, a Spanish university hospital. We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive women with a suspicious enhancing finding eligible for CEM-guided biopsy, who were prospectively enrolled in a pre-marketing clinical validation and feasibility study (October 2019 to September 2021). CEM-guided biopsy is a stereotactic-based procedure that, by using intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition, provides localisation of enhancing lesions. All the biopsies were performed using a vacuum-assisted device. We collected procedural characteristics (patient position and type of approach), and histopathological results. Feasibility endpoints included success (visualisation of the enhancing lesion, post-procedural biopsy changes and clip placement), procedural time, number of scout acquisitions and complications. A total of 66 suspicious enhancing lesions (18.0% foci, 44.0% mass, 38.0% non-mass enhancement; median size 8.5 mm) in 64 patients (median age 59 years, mostly minimal [48.4%] or mild [32.8%] background parenchymal enhancement) were referred for CEM-guided biopsy in the study period. The success rate was 63/66 (95.4%). Amongst successful procedures, patients were most frequently seated (52/63, 82.5%) and the preferred approach was horizontal (48/63, 76.2%). Median total time per procedure was 15 min. Median number of acquisitions needed before targeting was 2 (range 1-4). Complications consisted of hematoma (17/63, 27%) and vasovagal reaction (2/63, 3.2%). At histology, the malignancy rate was 25/63 (39.7%). In this first patient series, CEM-guided breast biopsy was feasible, with success and complication rates similar to those previously reported for magnetic resonance guidance. • CEM may be used to guide biopsy of enhancing lesions through a stereotactic-based procedure combined with intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition. • In this first patient series (n = 64), the success rate of CEM-guided biopsy was above 95%, the only complications were hematoma (22.2%) and vasovagal reaction (3.2%), and median total time per procedure was 15 min. • CEM-guided biopsy is feasible and could potentially be a widely available biopsy technique for enhancing-only lesions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35895121
doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-09021-w
pii: 10.1007/s00330-022-09021-w
pmc: PMC9755098
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Iodine Compounds
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
417-428Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):W267-W274
pubmed: 30240292
Eur Radiol. 2018 May;28(5):1909-1918
pubmed: 29168005
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2018 May;26(2):235-246
pubmed: 29622128
Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
pubmed: 18024988
Eur Radiol. 1999;9(8):1656-65
pubmed: 10525886
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Apr;178(4):1017-24
pubmed: 11906893
Eur Radiol. 2003 Feb;13(2):344-6
pubmed: 12599000
Cancer. 2006 Mar 1;106(5):982-90
pubmed: 16456807
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):401-9
pubmed: 25119022
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Oct;193(4):1025-9
pubmed: 19770325
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Dec;191(6):1798-804
pubmed: 19020252
Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):92-9
pubmed: 21852565
J Clin Pathol. 2004 Sep;57(9):897-902
pubmed: 15333647
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb;194(2):W150-7
pubmed: 20093566
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Sep;94:31-37
pubmed: 28941757
Breast Cancer. 2009;16(2):121-5
pubmed: 18807122
J Breast Cancer. 2018 Dec;21(4):453-462
pubmed: 30607168
Insights Imaging. 2019 Aug 2;10(1):76
pubmed: 31376021
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 May;178(5):1221-5
pubmed: 11959735
Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Sep 11;19(1):106
pubmed: 28893303
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jan;24(1):256-64
pubmed: 24048724
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jun;59(3):300-5
pubmed: 25900704
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Aug;181(2):527-31
pubmed: 12876040
Breast Care (Basel). 2017 Sep;12(4):212-216
pubmed: 29070983
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):925-932
pubmed: 30741561
Radiology. 2021 Apr;299(1):36-48
pubmed: 33650905
Radiology. 2019 Oct;293(1):81-88
pubmed: 31453765
BJR Open. 2021 Nov 24;3(1):20210034
pubmed: 34877457
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Sep;46(3):631-645
pubmed: 28470744
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jul;20(7):1554-62
pubmed: 20119729
Clin Imaging. 2017 Mar - Apr;42:193-197
pubmed: 28107737
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jun;208(6):W231-W237
pubmed: 28379734
Rofo. 2014 Jan;186(1):30-6
pubmed: 23897532
Eur J Radiol. 2021 Jan;134:109407
pubmed: 33248401
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jan;24(1):128-35
pubmed: 23979106
Eur Radiol. 2016 Dec;26(12):4371-4379
pubmed: 27097789
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Feb;198(2):292-9
pubmed: 22268171
Breast Care (Basel). 2017 Sep;12(4):208-210
pubmed: 29070982
Insights Imaging. 2020 Feb 5;11(1):12
pubmed: 32025985
Br J Radiol. 2020 Jun;93(1110):20200117
pubmed: 32207989
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Dec;97:37-43
pubmed: 29153365
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Jan;202(1):223-8
pubmed: 24370148