Cargando…

Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a dual-energy technique where low- and high-energy images are acquired for each mammographic view after contrast agent administration, and are then recombined to enhance potential contrast uptake. As CEM is increasingly used for both screening a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gennaro, Gisella, Cozzi, Andrea, Schiaffino, Simone, Sardanelli, Francesco, Caumo, Francesca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8997084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35406546
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071774
_version_ 1784684623438020608
author Gennaro, Gisella
Cozzi, Andrea
Schiaffino, Simone
Sardanelli, Francesco
Caumo, Francesca
author_facet Gennaro, Gisella
Cozzi, Andrea
Schiaffino, Simone
Sardanelli, Francesco
Caumo, Francesca
author_sort Gennaro, Gisella
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a dual-energy technique where low- and high-energy images are acquired for each mammographic view after contrast agent administration, and are then recombined to enhance potential contrast uptake. As CEM is increasingly used for both screening and diagnostic applications in breast imaging, but its associated radiation dose has been investigated only by single-center studies, we aimed to evaluate the CEM per-patient radiation dose on a large population in a bicentric setting, pooling data from two prospective studies employing the same model of mammography units. The CEM radiation dose showed a 6.2% difference between the two centers, mainly attributable to the study populations’ characteristics and to manufacturing differences between the two systems. The CEM dose was about 30% higher than that of standard digital mammography. Such an increment was close to the dose increase reported for digital breast tomosynthesis, which is already used in both screening and clinical settings. Thus, considering the extensively demonstrated diagnostic gain granted by CEM over these non-contrast-enhanced techniques, radiation dose concerns should not hinder ever-wider clinical implementations of CEM. ABSTRACT: The radiation dose associated with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has been investigated only by single-center studies. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiation dose between two centers performing CEM within two prospective studies, using the same type of equipment. The CEM mean glandular dose (MGD) was computed for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) images and their sum was calculated for each view. MGD and related parameters (entrance dose, breast thickness, compression, and density) were compared between the two centers using the Mann–Whitney test. Finally, per-patient MGD was calculated by pooling the two datasets and determining the contribution of LE and HE images. A total of 348 CEM examinations were analyzed (228 from Center 1 and 120 from Center 2). The median total MGD per view was 2.33 mGy (interquartile range 2.19–2.51 mGy) at Center 1 and 2.46 mGy (interquartile range 2.32–2.70 mGy) at Center 2, with a 0.15 mGy median difference (p < 0.001) equal to 6.2%. LE-images contributed between 64% and 77% to the total patient dose in CEM, with the remaining 23–36% being associated with HE images. The mean radiation dose for a two-view bilateral CEM exam was 4.90 mGy, about 30% higher than for digital mammography.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8997084
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89970842022-04-12 Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison Gennaro, Gisella Cozzi, Andrea Schiaffino, Simone Sardanelli, Francesco Caumo, Francesca Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a dual-energy technique where low- and high-energy images are acquired for each mammographic view after contrast agent administration, and are then recombined to enhance potential contrast uptake. As CEM is increasingly used for both screening and diagnostic applications in breast imaging, but its associated radiation dose has been investigated only by single-center studies, we aimed to evaluate the CEM per-patient radiation dose on a large population in a bicentric setting, pooling data from two prospective studies employing the same model of mammography units. The CEM radiation dose showed a 6.2% difference between the two centers, mainly attributable to the study populations’ characteristics and to manufacturing differences between the two systems. The CEM dose was about 30% higher than that of standard digital mammography. Such an increment was close to the dose increase reported for digital breast tomosynthesis, which is already used in both screening and clinical settings. Thus, considering the extensively demonstrated diagnostic gain granted by CEM over these non-contrast-enhanced techniques, radiation dose concerns should not hinder ever-wider clinical implementations of CEM. ABSTRACT: The radiation dose associated with contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) has been investigated only by single-center studies. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the radiation dose between two centers performing CEM within two prospective studies, using the same type of equipment. The CEM mean glandular dose (MGD) was computed for low energy (LE) and high energy (HE) images and their sum was calculated for each view. MGD and related parameters (entrance dose, breast thickness, compression, and density) were compared between the two centers using the Mann–Whitney test. Finally, per-patient MGD was calculated by pooling the two datasets and determining the contribution of LE and HE images. A total of 348 CEM examinations were analyzed (228 from Center 1 and 120 from Center 2). The median total MGD per view was 2.33 mGy (interquartile range 2.19–2.51 mGy) at Center 1 and 2.46 mGy (interquartile range 2.32–2.70 mGy) at Center 2, with a 0.15 mGy median difference (p < 0.001) equal to 6.2%. LE-images contributed between 64% and 77% to the total patient dose in CEM, with the remaining 23–36% being associated with HE images. The mean radiation dose for a two-view bilateral CEM exam was 4.90 mGy, about 30% higher than for digital mammography. MDPI 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8997084/ /pubmed/35406546 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071774 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Gennaro, Gisella
Cozzi, Andrea
Schiaffino, Simone
Sardanelli, Francesco
Caumo, Francesca
Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison
title Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison
title_full Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison
title_fullStr Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison
title_full_unstemmed Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison
title_short Radiation Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Two-Center Prospective Comparison
title_sort radiation dose of contrast-enhanced mammography: a two-center prospective comparison
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8997084/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35406546
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071774
work_keys_str_mv AT gennarogisella radiationdoseofcontrastenhancedmammographyatwocenterprospectivecomparison
AT cozziandrea radiationdoseofcontrastenhancedmammographyatwocenterprospectivecomparison
AT schiaffinosimone radiationdoseofcontrastenhancedmammographyatwocenterprospectivecomparison
AT sardanellifrancesco radiationdoseofcontrastenhancedmammographyatwocenterprospectivecomparison
AT caumofrancesca radiationdoseofcontrastenhancedmammographyatwocenterprospectivecomparison