Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance.
Biopsy
Breast neoplasms
Contrast media
Mammography
Radiation dosage
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2024
14 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
18
02
2024
accepted:
25
05
2024
revised:
21
04
2024
medline:
15
8
2024
pubmed:
15
8
2024
entrez:
14
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39143245
doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10920-3
pii: 10.1007/s00330-024-10920-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Neeter LMFH, Raat HPJF, Alcantara R et al (2021) Contrast-enhanced mammography: what the radiologist needs to know. BJR Open 3:20210034
Alcantara R, Posso M, Pitarch M et al (2023) Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technical feasibility and first outcomes. Eur Radiol 33:417–428 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09021-w/Published
Weaver OO, Yang WT, Scoggins ME et al (2022) Challenging contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsies: practical approach using real-time multimodality imaging and a proposed procedural algorithm. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.22.28572
Ames V, Britton PD (2011) Stereotactically guided breast biopsy: a review. Insights Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0064-1
Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14141397
Salomon E, Homolka P, Semturs F et al (2019) Comparison of a personalized breast dosimetry method with standard dosimetry protocols. Sci Rep 9:5866. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-42144-7
pubmed: 30971741
pmcid: 6458177
Dance DR, Skinner CL, Young KC et al (2000) Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol. Phys Med Biol 45:3225–3240
Dance DR (1990) Monte-Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. Phys Med Biol 35:1211–1219
van Engen RE, Bosmans H, Bouwman RW et al (2018) Protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of digital breast tomosynthesis systems version 1.03. European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF), Germany
Hendrick RE (2010) Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology 257:246–253. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100570
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10100570
pubmed: 20736332
Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG (2011) Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology 258:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100655/-/DC1
Dance DR, Young KC, Van Engen RE (2011) Estimation of mean glandular dose for breast tomosynthesis: factors for use with the UK, European and IAEA breast dosimetry protocols. Phys Med Biol 56:453–471. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/2/011
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/2/011
pubmed: 21191150
Ui Shin S, Min Chang J, Sun Bae M et al (2015) Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. Eur Radiol 25:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3399-z
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3399-z
Gennaro G, Cozzi A, Schiaffino S et al (2022) Radiation dose of contrast-enhanced mammography: a two-center prospective comparison. Cancers. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071774
Phillips J, Mihai G, Hassonjee SE et al (2018) Comparative dose of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:839–846. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.19036
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.19036
pubmed: 30063367
James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA et al (2017) Breast radiation dose with CESM compared with 2D FFDM and 3D tomosynthesis mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:362–372. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16743
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16743
pubmed: 28112559
Fusco R, Raiano N, Raiano C et al (2020) Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur J Radiol 126:108912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108912
James J (2022) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)-guided breast biopsy as an alternative to MRI-guided biopsy. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211287
Tang YC, Cheung YC (2023) Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technique and initial outcomes. Quant Imaging Med Surg 13:5349354–5345354. https://doi.org/10.21037/QIMS-23-137
doi: 10.21037/QIMS-23-137
Sammarra M, Piccolo CL, Sarli M et al (2024) Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: preliminary results of a single-center retrospective experience. J Clin Med 13:933
doi: 10.3390/jcm13040933
pubmed: 38398247
pmcid: 10889410
Amir T, Zuckerman SP, Barufaldi B et al (2021) Comparison of radiation dose between 2D digital stereotactic versus digital breast tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies. Eur J Radiol 134:109407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109407
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109407
pubmed: 33248401
GE Healthcare. Pristina Serena™ Operator Manual, 5845701-8EN, Rev-4. Published July 31, 2023. Available at: https://www.gehealthcare.com/support/manuals?search=eyJzZWFyY2hUZXJtIjoiNTg0NTcwMS04RU4iLCJsYW5ndWFnZU5hbWUiOiJFbmdsaXNoIChFTikifQ%3D%3D . Accessed 16 April 2024. Specific sections referenced: Chapter 11, Acquiring Biopsy Images, Sections 1-2, pp. 103–104.
GE Healthcare. Pristina Serena™ Bright Operator Manual, 5845678-8EN, Rev-3. Published December 07, 2022. Available at: https://www.gehealthcare.com/support/manuals?search=eyJzZWFyY2hUZXJtIjoiNTg0NTY3OC04RU4iLCJsYW5ndWFnZU5hbWUiOiJFbmdsaXNoIChFTikifQ%3D%3D . Accessed 16 April 2024. Specific sections referenced: Chapter 7 Acquiring CESM Biopsy Images pp. 35–38.
Sickles, EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
Lalji UC, Jeukens CRLPN, Houben I et al (2015) Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol 25:2813–2820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2
pubmed: 25813015
pmcid: 4562003
van Nijnatten TJA, Morscheid S, Baltzer PAT et al (2024) Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: current status and future challenges. Eur J Radiol 171:111312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111312
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111312
pubmed: 38237520
Kornecki A, Bhaduri M, Khan N et al (2023) Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided breast biopsy: single center experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.22.28780
Aribal E, Guldogan N, Seker ME et al (2024) MRI only detected lesions: Can contrast enhanced mammography guided biopsy be an alternative method: Initial clinical findings. Eur J Radiol 173:111373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111373
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111373
pubmed: 38364588
Kim G, Mehta TS, Brook A et al (2022) Enhancement type at contrast-enhanced mammography and association with malignancy. Radiology 305:299–306. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.210966
doi: 10.1148/radiol.210966
pubmed: 35819328
MQSA (2001) The Mammography Quality Standards Act final regulations: preparing for MQSA inspections; final guidance for industry and FDA. FDA, Washington