Contrast Enhancement in Breast Cancer: Magnetic Resonance vs. Mammography: A 10-Year Systematic Review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnostics Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.3390/diagnostics14212400
Francesco Filippone, Zohra Boudagga, Francesca Frattini, Gaetano Federico Fortuna, Davide Razzini, Anna Tambasco, Veronica Menardi, Alessandro Balbiano di Colcavagno, Serena Carriero, Anna Clelia Lucia Gambaro, Alessandro Carriero
{"title":"Contrast Enhancement in Breast Cancer: Magnetic Resonance vs. Mammography: A 10-Year Systematic Review.","authors":"Francesco Filippone, Zohra Boudagga, Francesca Frattini, Gaetano Federico Fortuna, Davide Razzini, Anna Tambasco, Veronica Menardi, Alessandro Balbiano di Colcavagno, Serena Carriero, Anna Clelia Lucia Gambaro, Alessandro Carriero","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14212400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance (CEMR) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) are important diagnostic tools to evaluate breast cancer patients, and both are objects of interest in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to select publications from the last ten years in order to evaluate the literature contributions related to the frequency of contrast agents used, administration techniques and the presence of adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have selected, according to the PRISMA statement, publications reviewed on Pub Med in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. The search engine was activated using the following keywords: \"CESM\", \"CEM\", \"CEDM\", \"Contrast mammography\" for CEM, \"DCE-MRI\", \"Contrast Enhancement MRI\" for CEMR, excluding reviews, book chapters and meta-analyses. From the total number of publications, we made a preliminary selection based on titles and abstracts and excluded all articles published in languages other than English and all experimental studies performed on surgical specimen or animal population, as well as all articles for which the extended version was not available. Two readers evaluated all the articles and compiled a pre-compiled form accordingly.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After a preliminary collection of 571 CEM publications, 118 articles were selected, relating to an overall population of 21,178 patients. From a total of 3063 CEMR publications, 356 articles relating to an overall population of 45,649 patients were selected. The most used contrast agents are Iohexol for CEM (39.83%) and Gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA) for CEMR (32.5%). Regarding the CEM contrast administration protocol, in 84.7% of cases a dose of 1.5 mL/kg was used with an infusion rate of 2-3 mL/s. Regarding the CEMR infusion protocol, in 71% of cases a dose of 1 mmol/kg was used at an infusion rate of 2-4 mL/s. Twelve out of 118 CEM articles reported allergic reactions, involving 29 patients (0.13%). In DCE-MRI, only one out of 356 articles reported allergic reactions, involving two patients (0.004%). No severe reactions were observed in either cohort of exams.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CEM and CEMR are essential contrast methods to evaluate breast diseases. However, from the literature analysis, although there are preferences on the uses of the contrast agent (Iohexol for CESM, G-DTPA for CEMR), a wide range of molecules are still used in contrast methods, with different administration protocols. Based on the collected data, it is possible to state that both methods are safe, and no severe reactions were observed in our evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545212/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212400","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Contrast Enhancement Magnetic Resonance (CEMR) and Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) are important diagnostic tools to evaluate breast cancer patients, and both are objects of interest in the literature. The purpose of this systematic review was to select publications from the last ten years in order to evaluate the literature contributions related to the frequency of contrast agents used, administration techniques and the presence of adverse reactions.

Methods: We have selected, according to the PRISMA statement, publications reviewed on Pub Med in the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2022. The search engine was activated using the following keywords: "CESM", "CEM", "CEDM", "Contrast mammography" for CEM, "DCE-MRI", "Contrast Enhancement MRI" for CEMR, excluding reviews, book chapters and meta-analyses. From the total number of publications, we made a preliminary selection based on titles and abstracts and excluded all articles published in languages other than English and all experimental studies performed on surgical specimen or animal population, as well as all articles for which the extended version was not available. Two readers evaluated all the articles and compiled a pre-compiled form accordingly.

Results: After a preliminary collection of 571 CEM publications, 118 articles were selected, relating to an overall population of 21,178 patients. From a total of 3063 CEMR publications, 356 articles relating to an overall population of 45,649 patients were selected. The most used contrast agents are Iohexol for CEM (39.83%) and Gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA) for CEMR (32.5%). Regarding the CEM contrast administration protocol, in 84.7% of cases a dose of 1.5 mL/kg was used with an infusion rate of 2-3 mL/s. Regarding the CEMR infusion protocol, in 71% of cases a dose of 1 mmol/kg was used at an infusion rate of 2-4 mL/s. Twelve out of 118 CEM articles reported allergic reactions, involving 29 patients (0.13%). In DCE-MRI, only one out of 356 articles reported allergic reactions, involving two patients (0.004%). No severe reactions were observed in either cohort of exams.

Conclusions: CEM and CEMR are essential contrast methods to evaluate breast diseases. However, from the literature analysis, although there are preferences on the uses of the contrast agent (Iohexol for CESM, G-DTPA for CEMR), a wide range of molecules are still used in contrast methods, with different administration protocols. Based on the collected data, it is possible to state that both methods are safe, and no severe reactions were observed in our evaluation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乳腺癌的对比增强:磁共振与乳房 X 线照相术:10年系统回顾
目的:对比增强磁共振成像(CEMR)和对比增强乳腺摄影术(CEM)是评估乳腺癌患者的重要诊断工具,两者都是文献关注的对象。本系统性综述的目的是选择过去十年中的出版物,以评估与造影剂使用频率、给药技术和不良反应相关的文献贡献:根据 PRISMA 声明,我们选择了 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间在 Pub Med 上发表的文献。使用以下关键词启动搜索引擎:"CESM"、"CEM"、"CEDM",CEM为 "对比乳腺摄影",CEMR为 "DCE-MRI"、"对比增强 MRI",不包括综述、书籍章节和荟萃分析。我们根据标题和摘要对所有文章进行了初步筛选,排除了所有以英语以外语言发表的文章、所有以手术标本或动物群体为对象的实验研究,以及所有没有扩展版本的文章。两位读者对所有文章进行了评估,并据此编制了一份预编译表:结果:在初步收集了 571 篇 CEM 论文后,选出了 118 篇文章,涉及 21178 名患者。在总共 3063 篇 CEMR 论文中,选出了 356 篇文章,涉及 45649 名患者。使用最多的造影剂是用于 CEM 的碘海醇(39.83%)和用于 CEMR 的钆喷酸(Gd-DTPA)(32.5%)。关于 CEM 造影剂使用方案,84.7% 的病例使用的剂量为 1.5 mL/kg,输注速度为 2-3 mL/s。关于 CEMR 输注方案,71% 的病例使用的剂量为 1 mmol/kg,输注速度为 2-4 mL/s。118 篇 CEM 文章中有 12 篇报告了过敏反应,涉及 29 名患者(0.13%)。在 DCE-MRI 中,356 篇文章中只有一篇报道了过敏反应,涉及两名患者(0.004%)。两组检查均未观察到严重反应:结论:CEM 和 CEMR 是评估乳腺疾病的重要对比方法。结论:CEM 和 CEMR 是评估乳腺疾病的基本造影方法。然而,从文献分析来看,虽然造影剂的使用有偏好(CESM 使用 Iohexol,CEMR 使用 G-DTPA),但造影剂的分子种类繁多,使用方法也各不相同。根据收集到的数据,可以说这两种方法都是安全的,在我们的评估中也没有观察到严重的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
期刊最新文献
RETRACTED: Monda et al. Left Ventricular Non-Compaction in Children: Aetiology and Diagnostic Criteria. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 115. Ultrashort Cell-Free DNA Fragments and Vimentin-Positive Circulating Tumor Cells for Predicting Early Recurrence in Patients with Biliary Tract Cancer. Monitoring and Management of Cytomegalovirus Reactivations After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Children: Experience from a Single Pediatric Center. Molecular Imaging Biomarkers for Early Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review of Emerging Technologies and Clinical Applications. AI-Assisted Detection and Localization of Spinal Metastatic Lesions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1