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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |