Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an innovative imaging tool for breast cancer detection, involving intravenous injection of a contrast medium and the assessment of lesion enhancement in two phases: early and delayed. The aim of the study was to analyze the topographic concordance of lesions detected in the early- versus delayed phase acquisitions.
Materials and methods
Approved by the Ethics Committee (No. 118/20), this prospective study included 100 women with histopathological confirmed breast neoplasia (B6) at the Radiodiagnostics Department of the Maggiore della Carità Hospital of Novara, Italy from May 1, 2021, to October 17, 2022. Participants underwent CEM examinations using a complete protocol, encompassing both early- and delayed image acquisitions. Three experienced radiologists blindly analyzed the CEM images for contrast enhancement to determine the topographic concordance of the identified lesions. Two readers assessed the complete study (protocol A), while one reader assessed the protocol without the delayed phase (protocol B). The average glandular dose (AGD) of the entire procedure was also evaluated.
Results
The analysis demonstrated high concordance among the three readers in the topographical identification of lesions within individual quadrants of both breasts, with a Cohen’s κ > 0.75, except for the lower inner quadrant of the right breast and the retro-areolar region of the left breast. The mean whole AGD was 29.2 mGy. The mean AGD due to CEM amounted to 73% of the whole AGD (21.2 mGy). The AGD attributable to the delayed phase of CEM contributed to 36% of the whole AGD (10.5 mGy).
Conclusions
As we found no significant discrepancy between the readings of the two protocols, we conclude that delayed-phase image acquisition in CEM does not provide essential diagnostic benefits for effective disease management. Instead, it contributes to unnecessary radiation exposure.
Funder
Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale Amedeo Avogrado
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference18 articles.
1. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer
2. Foglia et al. (2018). Analisi di budget impact dei percorsi di screening del tumore alla mammella: quali tecnologie sanitarie utilizzare per l’ottimizzazione?. Università Carlo Cattaneo - LIUC.
3. Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Miller KD, Kramer JL, Newman LA, Minihan A, Jemal A, Siegel RL (2022) Breast Cancer Statistics, 2022. CA A Cancer J Clin 72:524–541. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21754
4. Gruppo di lavoro AIOM, AIRTUM, Fondazione AIOM, PASSI, PASSI D’Argento, SIAPEC-IAP (2019). I numeri del cancro in Italia .
5. Mann RM, Athanasiou A, Baltzer PAT, Camps-Herrero J, Clauser P, Fallenberg EM, Forrai G, Fuchsjäger MH, Helbich TH, Killburn-Toppin F, Lesaru M, Panizza P, Pediconi F, Pijnappel RM, Pinker K, Sardanelli F, Sella T, Thomassin-Naggara I, Zackrisson S, Gilbert FJ (2022) European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). European radiology 32(6):4036–4045