Digital Mammography, Tomosynthesis, and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Intraindividual Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose for Screening Examinations.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
American Journal of Roentgenology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-15 DOI:10.2214/AJR.24.32150
Jeremiah W Sanders, William Pavlicek, Wolfgang Stefan, James Hanson, Richard E Sharpe, Bhavika K Patel
{"title":"Digital Mammography, Tomosynthesis, and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Intraindividual Comparison of Mean Glandular Dose for Screening Examinations.","authors":"Jeremiah W Sanders, William Pavlicek, Wolfgang Stefan, James Hanson, Richard E Sharpe, Bhavika K Patel","doi":"10.2214/AJR.24.32150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>BACKGROUND.</b> Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is growing in clinical use due to its increased sensitivity and specificity compared with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and/or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), particularly in patients with dense breasts. <b>OBJECTIVE.</b> The purpose of this study was to perform an intraindividual comparison of mean glandular dose (MGD) with FFDM, DBT, a combination protocol using both FFDM and DBT (hereafter, combined FFDM-DBT), and CEM in patients undergoing breast cancer screening. <b>METHODS.</b> This retrospective study included 389 women (median age, 57.4 years) with an elevated risk of breast cancer who, as part of participation in an earlier prospective clinical trial, underwent breast cancer screening with combined FFDM-DBT and CEM between February 2019 and April 2021. A total of 764 breasts (383 left, 381 right) were evaluated. One craniocaudal (CC) view and one mediolateral oblique (MLO) view were evaluated per breast for each of FFDM, DBT, and CEM. MGD values were extracted from DICOM metadata. BI-RADS breast density categories were extracted from clinical radiology reports. Data were summarized descriptively, including determination of corresponding effective doses. <b>RESULTS.</b> The breast density category was A in zero patients, B in 44 patients (88 breasts), C in 306 patients (599 breasts), and D in 39 patients (77 breasts). The median MGD per breast (CC and MLO views combined) was 4.07 mGy for FFDM alone, 4.97 mGy for DBT alone, 9.38 mGy for combined FFDM-DBT, 3.96 mGy for low-energy CEM, 1.90 mGy for high-energy CEM, and 5.87 for CEM overall. Corresponding effective dose values were 0.49, 0.60, 1.13, 0.48, 0.23, and 0.70 mSv, respectively. The median MGD for density categories B, C, and D, respectively, was 4.01, 4.22, and 2.70 mGy for FFDM; 5.93, 4.93, and 3.17 mGy for DBT; and 5.90, 6.02, and 4.52 mGy for CEM. <b>CONCLUSION.</b> In this intraindividual comparative study of screening examinations, the MGD per breast was higher for CEM than for FFDM or DBT alone. However, these differences were small, and MGD was lower for CEM than for combined FFDM-DBT. <b>CLINICAL IMPACT.</b> These findings are relevant to ongoing considerations of the role of CEM in breast cancer screening pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":55529,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Roentgenology","volume":" ","pages":"e2432150"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Roentgenology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.24.32150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is growing in clinical use due to its increased sensitivity and specificity compared with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and/or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), particularly in patients with dense breasts. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to perform an intraindividual comparison of mean glandular dose (MGD) with FFDM, DBT, a combination protocol using both FFDM and DBT (hereafter, combined FFDM-DBT), and CEM in patients undergoing breast cancer screening. METHODS. This retrospective study included 389 women (median age, 57.4 years) with an elevated risk of breast cancer who, as part of participation in an earlier prospective clinical trial, underwent breast cancer screening with combined FFDM-DBT and CEM between February 2019 and April 2021. A total of 764 breasts (383 left, 381 right) were evaluated. One craniocaudal (CC) view and one mediolateral oblique (MLO) view were evaluated per breast for each of FFDM, DBT, and CEM. MGD values were extracted from DICOM metadata. BI-RADS breast density categories were extracted from clinical radiology reports. Data were summarized descriptively, including determination of corresponding effective doses. RESULTS. The breast density category was A in zero patients, B in 44 patients (88 breasts), C in 306 patients (599 breasts), and D in 39 patients (77 breasts). The median MGD per breast (CC and MLO views combined) was 4.07 mGy for FFDM alone, 4.97 mGy for DBT alone, 9.38 mGy for combined FFDM-DBT, 3.96 mGy for low-energy CEM, 1.90 mGy for high-energy CEM, and 5.87 for CEM overall. Corresponding effective dose values were 0.49, 0.60, 1.13, 0.48, 0.23, and 0.70 mSv, respectively. The median MGD for density categories B, C, and D, respectively, was 4.01, 4.22, and 2.70 mGy for FFDM; 5.93, 4.93, and 3.17 mGy for DBT; and 5.90, 6.02, and 4.52 mGy for CEM. CONCLUSION. In this intraindividual comparative study of screening examinations, the MGD per breast was higher for CEM than for FFDM or DBT alone. However, these differences were small, and MGD was lower for CEM than for combined FFDM-DBT. CLINICAL IMPACT. These findings are relevant to ongoing considerations of the role of CEM in breast cancer screening pathways.

数字乳房x线照相术、断层合成和增强乳房x线照相术:筛查检查中平均腺体剂量的个体内比较。
背景:对比增强乳房x线摄影(CEM)在临床应用中越来越多,因为与全视野数字乳房x线摄影(FFDM)和/或数字乳房断层合成(DBT)相比,其灵敏度和特异性更高,特别是在致密乳房患者中。目的:对接受乳腺癌筛查的患者进行FFDM、DBT、FFDM和DBT联合方案(联合FFDM-DBT)和CEM之间的MGD进行个体内比较。方法:这项回顾性研究纳入了389名乳腺癌高风险女性(中位年龄57.4岁),作为早期前瞻性临床试验的一部分,这些女性在2019年2月至2021年4月期间接受了联合FFDM-DBT和CEM的乳腺癌筛查。共检查764个乳房(左383个,右381个)。每个乳房分别对FFDM、DBT和CEM的一个颅侧(CC)视图和一个中外侧斜(MLO)视图进行评估。MGD值是从DICOM元数据中提取的。BI-RADS乳腺密度分类从临床放射学报告中提取。对数据进行描述性总结,包括确定相应的有效剂量。结果:无患者乳腺密度分类为A, 44例(88个乳房)为B, 306例(599个乳房)为C, 39例(77个乳房)为D。每个乳房的平均MGD (CC和MLO视图相结合)仅FFDM为4.07 mGy,仅DBT为4.97 mGy, FFDM-DBT联合为9.38 mGy,低能CEM为3.96 mGy,高能CEM为1.90 mGy,整体CEM为5.87 mGy。相应的有效剂量值分别为0.49 mSv、0.60 mSv、1.13 mSv、0.48 mSv、0.23 mSv和0.70 mSv。密度类别B、C和D的中位MGD分别为4.01 mGy、4.22 mGy和2.70 mGy;DBT为5.93 mGy、4.93 mGy和3.17 mGy;CEM为5.90 mGy、6.02 mGy和4.52 mGy。结论:在这项筛查检查的个体间比较研究中,CEM的每乳MGD高于单纯的FFDM或DBT。然而,这些差异很小,CEM的MGD低于FFDM-DBT联合治疗。临床影响:这些发现与持续考虑CEM在乳腺癌筛查途径中的作用有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
920
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1907, the monthly American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) is the world’s longest continuously published general radiology journal. AJR is recognized as among the specialty’s leading peer-reviewed journals and has a worldwide circulation of close to 25,000. The journal publishes clinically-oriented articles across all radiology subspecialties, seeking relevance to radiologists’ daily practice. The journal publishes hundreds of articles annually with a diverse range of formats, including original research, reviews, clinical perspectives, editorials, and other short reports. The journal engages its audience through a spectrum of social media and digital communication activities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信