目的:这项回顾性研究旨在比较在对比增强乳房X线照相术(CEM)引导下每次采集的平均腺体剂量(AGD),常规立体定向乳腺活检(SBB),和数字乳房断层合成(DBT)。该研究还调查了压缩乳房厚度(CBT)和密度对AGD的影响。此外,该研究旨在估计每种指导方式的每个程序的AGD。
方法:该研究包括163名女性患者(平均年龄57±10岁),他们使用SBB(9%)进行了乳房X线照相术引导的活检,DBT(65%),或CEM(26%)指导。AGD和CBT数据从DICOM标题中提取,对乳腺密度进行目测评估。统计分析包括双样本t检验和描述性统计。
结果:每次采集的平均AGD在CEM中略有变化(1.48±0.22mGy),SBB(1.49±0.40mGy),和DBT(1.55±0.47mGy),CEM在较低的CBT下呈现较高的AGD,在较高的CBT下呈现较少的剂量增加。对于CBT>55mm,与SBB和DBT相比,CEM显示出降低的AGD(p<0.001)。乳腺密度对AGD的影响很小,A类除外。CEM每例手术的AGD估计约为11.84mGy,SBB为11.92mGy,DBT为6.2mGy。
结论:研究发现,CEM和SBB每次采集的平均AGD相似,DBT略高。CEM在较低CBT时表现出更高的AGD,但在较高CBT时表现出更低的AGD,表明剂量随着厚度的增加而增加。虽然乳房密度的整体影响很小,在A类中发现了差异。由于所需的采集次数较少,DBT在每个程序中的剂量效率更高。
结论:CEM指导在安全辐射范围内提供有效的病灶可视化,提高经皮图像引导乳腺干预的精度,并支持其在更广泛的乳腺诊断程序中的潜在考虑。
结论:使用CEM指导乳腺活检的AGD数据有限。CEM和SBB每次采集表现出相似的AGD;DBT显示每个程序的AGD最低。来自CEM引导的辐射适合经皮图像引导乳房介入的安全范围。
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to compare the average glandular dose (AGD) per acquisition in breast biopsies guided by contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), conventional stereotactic breast biopsy (SBB), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The study also investigated the influence of compressed breast thickness (CBT) and density on AGD. Furthermore, the study aimed to estimate the AGD per procedure for each guidance modality.
METHODS: The study included 163 female patients (mean age 57 ± 10 years) who underwent mammography-guided biopsies using SBB (9%), DBT (65%), or CEM (26%) guidance. AGD and CBT data were extracted from DICOM headers, and breast density was visually assessed. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-tests and descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Mean AGD per acquisition varied slightly among CEM (1.48 ± 0.22 mGy), SBB (1.49 ± 0.40 mGy), and DBT (1.55 ± 0.47 mGy), with CEM presenting higher AGD at lower CBTs and less dose escalation at higher CBTs. For CBT > 55 mm, CEM showed reduced AGD compared to SBB and DBT (p < 0.001). Breast density had minimal impact on AGD, except for category A. The estimated AGD per procedure was approximately 11.84 mGy for CEM, 11.92 mGy for SBB, and 6.2 mGy for DBT.
CONCLUSIONS: The study found mean AGD per acquisition to be similar for CEM and SBB, with DBT slightly higher. CEM demonstrated higher AGD at lower CBT but lower AGD at higher CBT, indicating reduced dose escalation with increasing thickness. While breast density had minimal overall impact, variations were noted in category A. DBT was more dose-efficient per procedure due to fewer acquisitions required.
CONCLUSIONS: CEM guidance provides effective lesion visualization within safe radiation limits, improving the precision of percutaneous image-guided breast interventions and supporting its potential consideration in a wider range of breast diagnostic procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist on the AGD using CEM guidance for breast biopsies. CEM and SBB exhibit similar AGD per acquisition; DBT demonstrated the lowest AGD per procedure. Radiation from CEM guidance fits within safe limits for percutaneous image-guided breast interventions.