Derek L Nguyen, Lars J Grimm, Jeffrey S Nelson, Karen S Johnson, Sujata V Ghate
{"title":"用数字乳腺断层合成技术筛查植入假体的乳房:非植入物移位视图是否需要断层合成?","authors":"Derek L Nguyen, Lars J Grimm, Jeffrey S Nelson, Karen S Johnson, Sujata V Ghate","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?\",\"authors\":\"Derek L Nguyen, Lars J Grimm, Jeffrey S Nelson, Karen S Johnson, Sujata V Ghate\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbi/wbae021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Breast Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129616/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Breast Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?
Objective: To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.
Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.
Results: The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).
Conclusion: The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.