Cargando…

Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review

We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/ve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zanardo, Moreno, Cozzi, Andrea, Trimboli, Rubina Manuela, Labaj, Olgerta, Monti, Caterina Beatrice, Schiaffino, Simone, Carbonaro, Luca Alessandro, Sardanelli, Francesco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31376021
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0
_version_ 1783440967598080000
author Zanardo, Moreno
Cozzi, Andrea
Trimboli, Rubina Manuela
Labaj, Olgerta
Monti, Caterina Beatrice
Schiaffino, Simone
Carbonaro, Luca Alessandro
Sardanelli, Francesco
author_facet Zanardo, Moreno
Cozzi, Andrea
Trimboli, Rubina Manuela
Labaj, Olgerta
Monti, Caterina Beatrice
Schiaffino, Simone
Carbonaro, Luca Alessandro
Sardanelli, Francesco
author_sort Zanardo, Moreno
collection PubMed
description We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/vendor, radiation dose, low-/high-energy tube voltage; contrast molecule, concentration and dose; injection modality, ARs and acquisition delay; order of views; examination time. Of 120 retrieved articles, 84 were included from 22 countries (September 2003–January 2019), totalling 14012 patients. Design was prospective in 44/84 studies (52%); in 70/84 articles (83%), a General Electric unit with factory-set kVp was used. Per-view average glandular dose, reported in 12/84 studies (14%), ranged 0.43–2.65 mGy. Contrast type/concentration was reported in 79/84 studies (94%), with Iohexol 350 mgI/mL mostly used (25/79, 32%), dose and flow rate in 72/84 (86%), with 1.5 mL/kg dose at 3 mL/s in 62/72 studies (86%). Injection was described in 69/84 articles (82%), automated in 59/69 (85%), manual in 10/69 (15%) and flush in 35/84 (42%), with 10–30 mL dose in 19/35 (54%). An examination time < 10 min was reported in 65/84 studies (77%), 120 s acquisition delay in 65/84 (77%) and order of views in 42/84 (50%) studies, beginning with the craniocaudal view of the non-suspected breast in 7/42 (17%). Thirty ARs were reported by 14/84 (17%) studies (26 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe non-fatal) with a pooled rate of 0.82% (fixed-effect model). Only half of CESM studies were prospective; factory-set kVp, contrast 1.5 mL/kg at 3 mL/s and 120 s acquisition delay were mostly used; only 1 severe AR was reported. CESM protocol standardisation is advisable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6677840
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66778402019-08-16 Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review Zanardo, Moreno Cozzi, Andrea Trimboli, Rubina Manuela Labaj, Olgerta Monti, Caterina Beatrice Schiaffino, Simone Carbonaro, Luca Alessandro Sardanelli, Francesco Insights Imaging Critical Review We reviewed technical parameters, acquisition protocols and adverse reactions (ARs) for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). A systematic search in databases, including MEDLINE/EMBASE, was performed to extract publication year, country of origin, study design; patients; mammography unit/vendor, radiation dose, low-/high-energy tube voltage; contrast molecule, concentration and dose; injection modality, ARs and acquisition delay; order of views; examination time. Of 120 retrieved articles, 84 were included from 22 countries (September 2003–January 2019), totalling 14012 patients. Design was prospective in 44/84 studies (52%); in 70/84 articles (83%), a General Electric unit with factory-set kVp was used. Per-view average glandular dose, reported in 12/84 studies (14%), ranged 0.43–2.65 mGy. Contrast type/concentration was reported in 79/84 studies (94%), with Iohexol 350 mgI/mL mostly used (25/79, 32%), dose and flow rate in 72/84 (86%), with 1.5 mL/kg dose at 3 mL/s in 62/72 studies (86%). Injection was described in 69/84 articles (82%), automated in 59/69 (85%), manual in 10/69 (15%) and flush in 35/84 (42%), with 10–30 mL dose in 19/35 (54%). An examination time < 10 min was reported in 65/84 studies (77%), 120 s acquisition delay in 65/84 (77%) and order of views in 42/84 (50%) studies, beginning with the craniocaudal view of the non-suspected breast in 7/42 (17%). Thirty ARs were reported by 14/84 (17%) studies (26 mild, 3 moderate, 1 severe non-fatal) with a pooled rate of 0.82% (fixed-effect model). Only half of CESM studies were prospective; factory-set kVp, contrast 1.5 mL/kg at 3 mL/s and 120 s acquisition delay were mostly used; only 1 severe AR was reported. CESM protocol standardisation is advisable. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6677840/ /pubmed/31376021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Critical Review
Zanardo, Moreno
Cozzi, Andrea
Trimboli, Rubina Manuela
Labaj, Olgerta
Monti, Caterina Beatrice
Schiaffino, Simone
Carbonaro, Luca Alessandro
Sardanelli, Francesco
Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review
title Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review
title_full Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review
title_fullStr Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review
title_short Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review
title_sort technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (cesm): a systematic review
topic Critical Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31376021
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0756-0
work_keys_str_mv AT zanardomoreno techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT cozziandrea techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT trimbolirubinamanuela techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT labajolgerta techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT monticaterinabeatrice techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT schiaffinosimone techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT carbonarolucaalessandro techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview
AT sardanellifrancesco techniqueprotocolsandadversereactionsforcontrastenhancedspectralmammographycesmasystematicreview