metricas

Radiología (English Edition)

Suggestions
Radiología (English Edition) Comparison of radiation dose in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), f...
Journal Information
Vol. 67. Issue 4.
(July - August 2025)
Cite
Cite
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
2185
Vol. 67. Issue 4.
(July - August 2025)
Original articles

Comparison of radiation dose in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)

Estudio comparativo de la dosis de radiación de la mamografía espectral con contraste (CEM), mamografía digital y tomosíntesis mamaria
Visits
2185
I. Suñéna,
Corresponding author
isunnena@salud.aragon.es

Corresponding author.
, A.I. García Barradob, S. Cruz Ciriab, J.G. Marotob, S. Lozares Corderoc, B. Gros Bañeresd, C. García Murb
a Servicio de Radiología, Hospital Nuestra Señora de Gracia, Zaragoza, Spain
b Servicio de Radiología, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
c Servicio de Radiofísica, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
d Servicio de Urgencias, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Introduction

The use of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) has increased in recent years, as has awareness of radiation dose safety among professionals and patients. The principal aim of this study was to compare radiation exposure measured using the entrance surface dose (ESD) and the average glandular dose (AGD) in CESM, Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT). Our second objective was to evaluate differences caused by compressed breast thickness, compression force and patient age.

Methods

A retrospective observational study included all patients who had undergone a CESM between May 2021 and May 2022. Data was collected on ESD and AGD from the different CESM studies, and breast density and volume were determined by two expert radiologists. The comparative analysis focused on the dose of radiation received during the craniocaudal (CC) projection of the right breast in CESM studies and FFDM or DBT, performed within a 12-month period. Lastly, a statistical analysis was performed to determine the influence of breast compression thickness, compression force and patient age.

Results

Seventy-seven patients participated in the comparative study and forty-four in the dosimetric study. Differences in radiation dose (ESD/AGD) were found among the three breast imaging techniques. The dose in CESM (1.70/5.39 mGy) was lower than in DBT (2.19/6.79 mGy) and higher than in FFDM (1.26/4.06 mGy) for an average breast compression thickness of 59.64 mm. A positive correlation was observed between the dose received in CESM and breast compression thickness (ρ = 0.55), and a negative correlation was observed with patient age (ρ = −0.27). No differences in dosimetric variables were observed for different compression forces.

Conclusions

The ESD and AGD in the CC projection of the right breast in CESM are higher than in FFDM but lower than in DBT. The dose had a positive correlation with breast compression thickness and a negative correlation with patient age.

Keywords:
Contrast enhanced mammography
Mammography
Radiation dose
Breast cancer
Resumen
Introducción

El uso de la mamografía espectral con contraste (CEM) ha aumentado en los últimos años, así como la concienciación sobre la dosis de radiación por parte de los profesionales y pacientes. El objetivo principal del estudio es comparar la dosis de radiación, medida como dosis de entrada (DE) y dosis media glandular (DMG) de la CEM, mamografía digital y tomosíntesis mamaria. El objetivo secundario fue evaluar las diferencias según el espesor de la mama en compresión, la fuerza de compresión y la edad de la paciente.

Material y métodos

Estudio retrospectivo observacional en el que se incluyeron las pacientes a las que se les había realizado una CEM entre mayo del 2021 y mayo del 2022. Se recogieron la DE y la DMG de las distintas proyecciones de la CEM y se determinó la densidad y volumen mamarios por dos radiólogos expertos. Para el análisis comparativo, se valoró la radiación recibida en la proyección craneocaudal (CC) de la mama derecha de los estudios de CEM y de mamografía convencional o tomosíntesis mamaria realizados en un intervalo de tiempo menor de un año. Por último, se realizó un análisis estadístico para determinar la influencia del espesor de la mama en compresión, la fuerza de compresión y la edad de la paciente.

Resultados

Setenta y siete pacientes participaron en el estudio comparativo y cuarenta y cuatro en el estudio dosimétrico. Se encontraron diferencias en la dosis de radiación (DE/DMG) entre las tres técnicas de imagen mamaria. En CEM (1,70/5,39 mGy) fue menor que en tomosíntesis (2,19/6,79 mGy) y mayor que en mamografía convencional (1,26/4,06 mGy) para un espesor medio de mama en compresión de 59,64 mm. Se obtuvo una correlación positiva entre la dosis recibida en la CEM y el espesor de la mama en compresión (ρ = 0,55), y una negativa con la edad de la paciente (ρ = −0,27). No se apreciaron diferencias en las variables dosimétricas para distintas fuerzas de compresión.

Conclusiones

La DE y DMG en la proyección CC de la mama derecha en CEM es mayor que en mamografía, pero menor que en tomosíntesis. La dosis aumentó con el espesor de la mama en compresión y disminuyó con la edad de la paciente.

Palabras clave:
Mamografía con contraste
Mamografía
Radiación
Cáncer de mama

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Radiología (English Edition)
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Purchase
Purchase article

Purchasing article the PDF version will be downloaded

Purchase now
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
References
[1]
M.S. Jochelson, M.B.I. Lobbes.
Contrast-enhanced mammography: state of the art.
Radiology, 299 (2021), pp. 36-48
[2]
R.E. Hendrick.
Radiation doses and risks in breast screening.
J Breast Imaging., 2 (2020), pp. 188-200
[3]
K. Zamora, E. Allen, B. Hermecz.
Contrast mammography in clinical practice: current uses and potential diagnostic dilemmas.
Clin Imaging., 71 (2020), pp. 126-135
[4]
A. Pijpe, N. Andrieu, D.F. Easton, A. Kesminiene, E. Cardis, C. Noguès, et al.
Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK).
BMJ., 345 (2012),
[5]
J.R. James, W. Pavlicek, J.A. Hanson, T.F. Boltz, B.K. Patel.
Breast radiation dose with cesm compared with 2D FFDM and 3D tomosynthesis mammography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol., 208 (2017), pp. 362-372
[6]
S. Avramova-Cholakova, E. Kulama, S. Daskalov, J. Loveland.
Performance comparison of systems with full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, 197 (2021), pp. 212-229
[7]
G. Bicchierai, S. Busoni, P. Tortoli, S. Bettarini, F.D. Naro, D. De Benedetto, et al.
Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).
Acad Radiol., 29 (2022), pp. 1342-1349
[8]
L. Nicosia, A.C. Bozzini, F. Pesapane, A. Rotili, I. Marinucci, G. Signorelli, et al.
Breast digital tomosynthesis versus contrast-enhanced mammography: comparison of diagnostic application and radiation dose in a screening setting.
Cancers (Basel)., 15 (2023),
[9]
N.M. Norsuddin, J.G. Mei Sin, R. Ravintaran, S. Arasaratnam, M.K. Abdul Karim.
Impact of age and breast thickness on mean glandular dose of standard digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Appl Radiat Isot., 192 (2023),
[10]
C.J.S.E. D’Orsi, E.B. Mendelson, E.A. Morris, et al.
ACR BI-RADS ® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Radiology.
American College of Radiology, (2013),
[11]
R.J. Keddy, D.M. Brebner.
Negative development xeroradiography of the breast: doses and clinical indications.
Br J Radiol., 53 (1980), pp. 325-330
[12]
R. Fusco, N. Raiano, C. Raiano, F. Maio, P. Vallone, M. Mattace Raso, et al.
Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Eur J Radiol., 126 (2020),
[13]
Commission E.
European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography screening, 4th ed, Office for Official Publications of the EC, (2006),
[14]
E. Tzamicha, E. Yakoumakis, I.A. Tsalafoutas, A. Dimitriadis, E. Georgiou, V. Tsapaki, et al.
Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
Phys Med., 31 (2015), pp. 785-791
[15]
G. Gennaro, S. Avramova-Cholakova, A. Azzalini, M. Luisa Chapel, M. Chevalier, O. Ciraj, et al.
Quality controls in digital mammography protocol of the EFOMP Mammo Working group.
Phys Med., 48 (2018), pp. 55-64
[16]
U.C. Lalji, C.R. Jeukens, I. Houben, P.J. Nelemans, R.E. van Engen, E. van Wylick, et al.
Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.
Eur Radiol., 25 (2015), pp. 2813-2820
[17]
S. Niroshani, T. Nakamura, N. Michiru, T. Negishi.
Evaluation of exposure factors of dual-energy contrast-enhanced mammography to optimize radiation dose with improved image quality.
Acta Radiol Open., 11 (2022),
[18]
E. Serwan, D. Matthews, J. Davies, M. Chau.
Mechanical standardisation of mammographic compression using Volpara software.
Radiography (Lond)., 27 (2021), pp. 789-794
[19]
A. Rodriguez-Ruiz, A. Gubern-Merida, M. Imhof-Tas, S. Lardenoije, A.J.T. Wanders, I. Andersson, et al.
One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more?.
Eur Radiol., 28 (2018), pp. 1938-1948
asdasdasd
Article options
Tools