转移性乳腺癌(MBC)可持续诊断方法的评价。

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Andrea Masperi, Cristiano Michele Girlando, Valerio Cubadda, Aurora Pesenti, Giuseppe Muscettola, Giuseppe Buonsanti, Gaeta Aurora, Sara Gandini, Giuseppe Petralia
{"title":"转移性乳腺癌(MBC)可持续诊断方法的评价。","authors":"Andrea Masperi, Cristiano Michele Girlando, Valerio Cubadda, Aurora Pesenti, Giuseppe Muscettola, Giuseppe Buonsanti, Gaeta Aurora, Sara Gandini, Giuseppe Petralia","doi":"10.1007/s11547-025-02082-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Assessing bone metastases in metastatic breast cancer is challenging. Due to rising concerns over energy use and emissions, energy-efficient imaging is essential. This study aimed to compare three diagnostic imaging approaches used in therapy monitoring of MBC patients, evaluating both their environmental impact-quantified by energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions-and their biological cost, defined as patient exposure to ionizing radiation and contrast media volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed 70 patients with bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer who underwent WB-MRI (DL1) and either FDG-PET/CT (DL2) or bone scintigraphy (BS) with CT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT-CAP) (DL3). We compared scan time, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions (kgCO2e), radiation dose, and contrast media usage across these diagnostic pathways. Energy consumption was calculated using protocol-defined active and idle phases, while biological exposure was assessed from institutional RIS-PACS records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DL1 had the highest energy consumption (10.36 ± 0.11 kWh/patient) and GHG emissions (2.53 ± 0.03 kgCO2e). DL2 showed moderate energy use (4.08 ± 0.38 kWh/patient) and GHG emissions (0.99 ± 0.09 kgCO2e), which significantly increased with repeat scans. DL3 exhibited the lowest environmental impact (7.60 ± 1.07 kWh; 1.85 ± 0.26 kgCO2e), though required multiple visits and higher contrast media and radiation doses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WB-MRI offers a biologically safer alternative for treatment monitoring in metastatic breast cancer, yet its environmental footprint is substantial. FDG-PET/CT represents a more sustainable imaging option if repeated scans are minimized. Integrated imaging pathways and low-energy technologies should guide future diagnostic strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":20817,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia Medica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of sustainable diagnostic approaches in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Masperi, Cristiano Michele Girlando, Valerio Cubadda, Aurora Pesenti, Giuseppe Muscettola, Giuseppe Buonsanti, Gaeta Aurora, Sara Gandini, Giuseppe Petralia\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11547-025-02082-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Assessing bone metastases in metastatic breast cancer is challenging. Due to rising concerns over energy use and emissions, energy-efficient imaging is essential. This study aimed to compare three diagnostic imaging approaches used in therapy monitoring of MBC patients, evaluating both their environmental impact-quantified by energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions-and their biological cost, defined as patient exposure to ionizing radiation and contrast media volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analysed 70 patients with bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer who underwent WB-MRI (DL1) and either FDG-PET/CT (DL2) or bone scintigraphy (BS) with CT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT-CAP) (DL3). We compared scan time, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions (kgCO2e), radiation dose, and contrast media usage across these diagnostic pathways. Energy consumption was calculated using protocol-defined active and idle phases, while biological exposure was assessed from institutional RIS-PACS records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DL1 had the highest energy consumption (10.36 ± 0.11 kWh/patient) and GHG emissions (2.53 ± 0.03 kgCO2e). DL2 showed moderate energy use (4.08 ± 0.38 kWh/patient) and GHG emissions (0.99 ± 0.09 kgCO2e), which significantly increased with repeat scans. DL3 exhibited the lowest environmental impact (7.60 ± 1.07 kWh; 1.85 ± 0.26 kgCO2e), though required multiple visits and higher contrast media and radiation doses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>WB-MRI offers a biologically safer alternative for treatment monitoring in metastatic breast cancer, yet its environmental footprint is substantial. FDG-PET/CT represents a more sustainable imaging option if repeated scans are minimized. Integrated imaging pathways and low-energy technologies should guide future diagnostic strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiologia Medica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiologia Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-025-02082-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-025-02082-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在转移性乳腺癌中评估骨转移是具有挑战性的。由于对能源使用和排放的日益关注,节能成像是必不可少的。本研究旨在比较三种用于MBC患者治疗监测的诊断成像方法,评估它们的环境影响(通过能源消耗和相关温室气体排放来量化)和生物成本(定义为患者暴露于电离辐射和造影剂体积)。方法:我们回顾性分析了70例骨显性转移性乳腺癌患者,这些患者接受了WB-MRI (DL1)和FDG-PET/CT (DL2)或骨显像(BS)和胸部、腹部和骨盆CT (CT- cap) (DL3)检查。我们比较了这些诊断途径的扫描时间、能耗、温室气体排放(kgCO2e)、辐射剂量和造影剂使用情况。使用协议定义的活动和空闲阶段计算能量消耗,而根据机构RIS-PACS记录评估生物暴露。结果:DL1患者能耗最高(10.36±0.11 kWh/患者),温室气体排放量最高(2.53±0.03 kgCO2e)。DL2显示中等能量消耗(4.08±0.38 kWh/患者)和温室气体排放(0.99±0.09 kgCO2e),重复扫描后显著增加。DL3表现出最低的环境影响(7.60±1.07 kWh; 1.85±0.26 kgCO2e),尽管需要多次访问和更高的造影剂和辐射剂量。结论:WB-MRI为转移性乳腺癌的治疗监测提供了一种生物学上更安全的替代方法,但其对环境的影响很大。如果减少重复扫描,FDG-PET/CT是一种更可持续的成像选择。综合成像途径和低能耗技术应指导未来的诊断策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of sustainable diagnostic approaches in metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Introduction: Assessing bone metastases in metastatic breast cancer is challenging. Due to rising concerns over energy use and emissions, energy-efficient imaging is essential. This study aimed to compare three diagnostic imaging approaches used in therapy monitoring of MBC patients, evaluating both their environmental impact-quantified by energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions-and their biological cost, defined as patient exposure to ionizing radiation and contrast media volume.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed 70 patients with bone-dominant metastatic breast cancer who underwent WB-MRI (DL1) and either FDG-PET/CT (DL2) or bone scintigraphy (BS) with CT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT-CAP) (DL3). We compared scan time, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions (kgCO2e), radiation dose, and contrast media usage across these diagnostic pathways. Energy consumption was calculated using protocol-defined active and idle phases, while biological exposure was assessed from institutional RIS-PACS records.

Results: DL1 had the highest energy consumption (10.36 ± 0.11 kWh/patient) and GHG emissions (2.53 ± 0.03 kgCO2e). DL2 showed moderate energy use (4.08 ± 0.38 kWh/patient) and GHG emissions (0.99 ± 0.09 kgCO2e), which significantly increased with repeat scans. DL3 exhibited the lowest environmental impact (7.60 ± 1.07 kWh; 1.85 ± 0.26 kgCO2e), though required multiple visits and higher contrast media and radiation doses.

Conclusion: WB-MRI offers a biologically safer alternative for treatment monitoring in metastatic breast cancer, yet its environmental footprint is substantial. FDG-PET/CT represents a more sustainable imaging option if repeated scans are minimized. Integrated imaging pathways and low-energy technologies should guide future diagnostic strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiologia Medica
Radiologia Medica 医学-核医学
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
7.90%
发文量
133
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Felice Perussia founded La radiologia medica in 1914. It is a peer-reviewed journal and serves as the official journal of the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM). The primary purpose of the journal is to disseminate information related to Radiology, especially advancements in diagnostic imaging and related disciplines. La radiologia medica welcomes original research on both fundamental and clinical aspects of modern radiology, with a particular focus on diagnostic and interventional imaging techniques. It also covers topics such as radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, radiobiology, health physics, and artificial intelligence in the context of clinical implications. The journal includes various types of contributions such as original articles, review articles, editorials, short reports, and letters to the editor. With an esteemed Editorial Board and a selection of insightful reports, the journal is an indispensable resource for radiologists and professionals in related fields. Ultimately, La radiologia medica aims to serve as a platform for international collaboration and knowledge sharing within the radiological community.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信