用数字乳腺断层合成技术筛查植入假体的乳房:非植入物移位视图是否需要断层合成?

IF 2 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Breast Imaging Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1093/jbi/wbae021
Derek L Nguyen, Lars J Grimm, Jeffrey S Nelson, Karen S Johnson, Sujata V Ghate
{"title":"用数字乳腺断层合成技术筛查植入假体的乳房:非植入物移位视图是否需要断层合成?","authors":"Derek L Nguyen, Lars J Grimm, Jeffrey S Nelson, Karen S Johnson, Sujata V Ghate","doi":"10.1093/jbi/wbae021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.</p>","PeriodicalId":43134,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Breast Imaging","volume":" ","pages":"261-270"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?\",\"authors\":\"Derek L Nguyen, Lars J Grimm, Jeffrey S Nelson, Karen S Johnson, Sujata V Ghate\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbi/wbae021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Breast Imaging\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"261-270\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129616/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Breast Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Breast Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbae021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定在对植入假体隆胸的女性进行筛查时,使用数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)的标准方案与仅使用 2D 的替代方案进行非植入物移位(ID)视图的癌症可视化效用和辐射剂量:这项回顾性队列研究确定了从 2014 年 7 月 28 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日期间接受筛查 DBT 检查并发现异常的植入假体的女性。三位接受过研究员培训的乳腺放射科医生独立回顾性地审查了检查结果,以确定最初发现的异常是否可以通过标准方案(ID 和非 ID 视图采用合成 2D (S2D) DBT)和备用方案(ID 视图采用 S2D DBT,非 ID 视图仅采用 S2D 图像)观察到。对两种方案的估计检查平均腺体剂量(AGD)以及癌症可视化与患者和植入物特征之间的关联进行了评估:研究包括 195 名患者(平均年龄 55 岁 ± 10),共发现 223 个异常结果。随后对 86 例异常进行了活检:59例(69%)良性,8例(9%)高危,19例(22%)恶性。标准方案(19/223,8.5%)和备用方案(18/223,8.1%)在恶性肿瘤显像率方面没有明显差异(P =.92),但在非 ID 视图中加入 DBT 发现了一个额外的恶性肿瘤。使用标准方案进行检查的总 AGD(21.9 mGy ± 5.0)明显高于估计的备用方案(12.6 mGy ± 5.0,P 10.0 cm)(均为 P 结论):将DBT纳入非ID视图并未明显提高癌症显像率,但确实明显增加了整体检查的AGD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Screening the Implant-Augmented Breast with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Is Tomosynthesis Necessary for Non-implant-Displaced Views?

Objective: To determine cancer visualization utility and radiation dose for non-implant-displaced (ID) views using standard protocol with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) vs alternative protocol with 2D only when screening women with implant augmentation.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study identified women with implants who underwent screening DBT examinations that had abnormal findings from July 28, 2014, to December 31, 2021. Three fellowship-trained breast radiologists independently reviewed examinations retrospectively to determine if the initially identified abnormalities could be visualized on standard protocol (DBT with synthesized 2D (S2D) for ID and non-ID views) and alternate protocol (DBT with S2D for ID and only the S2D images for non-ID views). Estimated exam average glandular dose (AGD) and associations between cancer visualization with patient and implant characteristics for both protocols were evaluated.

Results: The study included 195 patients (mean age 55 years ± 10) with 223 abnormal findings. Subsequent biopsy was performed for 86 abnormalities: 59 (69%) benign, 8 (9%) high risk, and 19 (22%) malignant. There was no significant difference in malignancy visualization rate between standard (19/223, 8.5%) and alternate (18/223, 8.1%) protocols (P = .92), but inclusion of the DBT for non-ID views found one additional malignancy. Total examination AGD using standard protocol (21.9 mGy ± 5.0) was significantly higher than it would be for estimated alternate protocol (12.6 mGy ± 5.0, P <.001). This remained true when stratified by breast thickness: 6.0-7.9 cm, 8.0-9.9 cm, >10.0 cm (all P <.001).

Conclusion: The inclusion of DBT for non-ID views did not significantly increase the cancer visualization rate but did significantly increase overall examination AGD.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
81
期刊最新文献
Imaging Features and Risk Factors Associated with Locoregional Recurrence of Breast Cancer: Insights for Imaging and Clinical Practice. A Framework for Aligning 5-Year and Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk in Women Without High-Penetrance Mutations. Hyperechoic Breast Mass as an Atypical Presentation of Primary MALT Lymphoma. Identifying Interventions to Reduce Breast Cancer Screening Barriers using Community Centered Prioritization Exercises. Mammographic and Pathologic Appearance of Retained Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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