Comparative Dose of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM), Digital Mammography, and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

被引:42
|
作者
Phillips, Jordana [1 ,2 ]
Mihai, Georgeta [1 ,2 ]
Hassonjee, Sarah Esaa [1 ,2 ]
Raj, Sean D. [1 ,2 ]
Palmer, Matthew R. [1 ,2 ]
Brook, Alexander [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Da [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Med Sch, Dept Radiol, 330 Brookline Ave,4th Fl, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[2] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, 330 Brookline Ave,4th Fl, Boston, MA 02215 USA
关键词
contrast-enhanced digital mammography; contrast-enhanced mammography; contrast-enhanced spectral mammography; radiation dose; DOSIMETRY PROTOCOLS; RADIATION-EXPOSURE; PERFORMANCE; MRI; UK;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.17.19036
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to provide a more accurate estimation of the radiation dose of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) relative to that of 2D digital mammography and tomosynthesis using phantom and patient data and an accepted dosimetry protocol that eliminates vendor-specific average glandular dose (AGD) estimates while including breast density. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Patient and phantom AGD estimation was performed using two vendors (system 1 and system 2) in five imaging modes, including 2D, 3D, and CESM imaging. Patient AGD was retrospectively estimated from 45 patients who underwent mammography with all imaging modes during 2012-2016. Patient and phantom AGD were estimated using accepted European and International Atomic Energy Agency protocols for dosimetry and were compared across imaging modes using a paired t test with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS. Phantom data showed that the imaging modes with the lowest to highest AGDs were system 1 2D, followed by system 2 2D and system 2 3D, which had comparable values (p = 0.6), followed by system 1 CESM, and then by system 2 2D plus 3D. One hundred eighty views in 45 patients showed that the system 1 CESM AGD was 1.8 times greater than the system 1 21) AU) (p < 0.001), 1.2 times greater than the system 2 21) AO) (p < 0.001), 1.2 times greater than the system 2 3D AGD (p < 0.001), and 0.6 times less than the system 2 2D plus 3D AGD (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION. The CESM dose for system 1 is within an acceptable range as compared with other commonly performed mammographic examinations and should not preclude its use as a diagnostic breast imaging tool.
引用
收藏
页码:839 / 846
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings
    Sorin, Vera
    Faermann, Renata
    Yagil, Yael
    Shalmon, Anat
    Gotlieb, Michael
    Halshtok-Neiman, Osnat
    Ben-David, Merav A.
    Sklair-Levy, Miri
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2020, 61 : 99 - 105
  • [22] Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting
    Nicosia, Luca
    Bozzini, Anna Carla
    Pesapane, Filippo
    Rotili, Anna
    Marinucci, Irene
    Signorelli, Giulia
    Frassoni, Samuele
    Bagnardi, Vincenzo
    Origgi, Daniela
    De Marco, Paolo
    Abiuso, Ida
    Sangalli, Claudia
    Balestreri, Nicola
    Corso, Giovanni
    Cassano, Enrico
    CANCERS, 2023, 15 (09)
  • [23] Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings
    Sorin, Vera
    Faermann, Renata
    Yagil, Yael
    Shalmon, Anat
    Gotlieb, Michael
    Halshtok-Neiman, Osnat
    Ben-David, Merav A.
    Sklair-Levy, Miri
    Sorin, Vera (Vera.Sorin@sheba.health.gov.il), 1600, Elsevier Inc. (61): : 99 - 105
  • [24] Can Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) Reduce Benign Breast Biopsy?
    Liew, Amanda Ling Fung
    Lim, Hollie Mei Yeen
    Fok, Elizabeth Chun Mei
    Loke, Siu Cheng
    Tan, Ern Yu
    Chong, Bee Kiang
    Lee, Yeong Shyan
    Chan, Patrick Mun Yew
    Chotai, Niketa
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2022, 2022 : 7087408
  • [25] Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Moseley, Tanya W.
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 59 (02): : 362 - 379
  • [26] Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography
    Diekmann, Felix
    Freyer, Martin
    Diekmann, Susanne
    Fallenberg, Eva M.
    Fischer, Thomas
    Bick, Ulrich
    Poellinger, Alexander
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2011, 78 (01) : 112 - 121
  • [27] Contrast-enhanced digital mammography and angiogenesis
    Rosado-Mendez, I.
    Palma, B. A.
    Villasenor, Y.
    Benitez-Bribiesca, L.
    Brandan, M. E.
    NUCLEAR PHYSICS METHODS AND ACCELERATORS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, 2007, 958 : 278 - +
  • [28] Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis
    Cepeda Martins, A. R.
    Di Maria, S.
    Afonso, J.
    Pereira, M.
    Pereira, J.
    Vaz, P.
    RADIOGRAPHY, 2022, 28 (02) : 333 - 339
  • [29] Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)
    Martin Daniaux
    Tobias De Zordo
    Wolfram Santner
    Birgit Amort
    Florian Koppelstätter
    Werner Jaschke
    Clarisse Dromain
    Willi Oberaigner
    Michael Hubalek
    Christian Marth
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2015, 292 : 739 - 747
  • [30] Dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)
    Daniaux, Martin
    De Zordo, Tobias
    Santner, Wolfram
    Amort, Birgit
    Koppelstaetter, Florian
    Jaschke, Werner
    Dromain, Clarisse
    Oberaigner, Willi
    Hubalek, Michael
    Marth, Christian
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2015, 292 (04) : 739 - 747