Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting.
Average Glandular Dose
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
breast cancer screening
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Apr 2023
22 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
28
02
2023
revised:
15
04
2023
accepted:
20
04
2023
medline:
13
5
2023
pubmed:
13
5
2023
entrez:
13
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aims to evaluate the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of CEM versus Digital Mammography (DM) as well as versus DM plus one-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), which were performed in the same patients at short intervals of time. A preventive screening examination in high-risk asymptomatic patients between 2020 and 2022 was performed with two-view Digital Mammography (DM) projections (Cranio Caudal and Medio Lateral) plus one Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) projection (mediolateral oblique, MLO) in a single session examination. For all patients in whom we found a suspicious lesion by using DM + DBT, we performed (within two weeks) a CEM examination. AGD and compression force were compared between the diagnostic methods. All lesions identified by DM + DBT were biopsied; then, we assessed whether lesions found by DBT were also highlighted by DM alone and/or by CEM. We enrolled 49 patients with 49 lesions in the study. The median AGD was lower for DM alone than for CEM (3.41 mGy vs. 4.24 mGy,
Identifiants
pubmed: 37173880
pii: cancers15092413
doi: 10.3390/cancers15092413
pmc: PMC10177523
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jan;26(1):184-90
pubmed: 25929946
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):W267-W274
pubmed: 30240292
Breast Cancer. 2017 Jan;24(1):32-41
pubmed: 27138386
Radiology. 2022 Mar;302(3):568-581
pubmed: 34904875
Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
pubmed: 18024988
Radiology. 2017 May;283(2):361-370
pubmed: 28221097
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Nov;45(11):3225-40
pubmed: 11098900
Radiology. 2016 Dec;281(3):730-736
pubmed: 27467468
Br J Cancer. 2022 Jul;127(1):116-125
pubmed: 35352019
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jul;24(7):1668-76
pubmed: 24696228
Eur Radiol. 2022 Nov;32(11):7388-7399
pubmed: 35648209
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Feb;214(2):324-327
pubmed: 31799869
Histopathology. 2020 Aug;77(2):181-185
pubmed: 32056259
Clin Breast Cancer. 2022 Jul;22(5):e647-e654
pubmed: 35246389
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jun;14(7):583-9
pubmed: 23623721
Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75
pubmed: 12355001
Acad Radiol. 2023 Mar 8;:
pubmed: 36898907
Cureus. 2021 May 18;13(5):e15095
pubmed: 34159005
Insights Imaging. 2019 Aug 2;10(1):76
pubmed: 31376021
Radiology. 2018 Aug;288(2):375-385
pubmed: 29869961
Radiology. 2023 Mar;306(3):e221785
pubmed: 36719288
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 31;14(7):
pubmed: 35406546
Radiology. 2021 Jan;298(1):49-57
pubmed: 33170101
Med Pharm Rep. 2020 Oct;93(4):335-341
pubmed: 33225258
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2022 Nov 1;31(6):551-553
pubmed: 35044986
Breast. 2015 Apr;24(2):93-9
pubmed: 25554018
Acad Radiol. 2022 Sep;29(9):1342-1349
pubmed: 35065889
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Feb;208(2):362-372
pubmed: 28112559
Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 19;162(10):673-81
pubmed: 25984843
Med Phys. 1999 Jul;26(7):1365-70
pubmed: 10435539
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Oct;211(4):839-846
pubmed: 30063367
Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;42(5):793-806, v
pubmed: 15337416
Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1778-86
pubmed: 23117178