Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39143245›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Breast radiation dose with contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: a retrospective comparison with stereotactic and tomosynthesis guidance.

Rodrigo Alcantara, Javier Azcona, Mireia Pitarch, Natalia Arenas, Xavier Castells, Pablo Milioni, Valentina Iotti, Giulia Besutti

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rodrigo AlcantaraDepartment of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 1714150@uab.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4365-5640
Javier AzconaRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Mireia PitarchRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Natalia ArenasRadiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Xavier CastellsDepartment of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Pablo MilioniGE Healthcare, Buc, France.
Valentina IottiRadiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Laboratory Medicine, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giulia BesuttiRadiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Laboratory Medicine, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis 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.

methodsThe 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.

resultsMean 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.

conclusionThe 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. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: 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. KEY POINTS: 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.

Indexed as

BreastBreast NeoplasmsImage-Guided BiopsyMammographyRadiation DosageAdultAgedContrast MediaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesStereotaxic TechniquesContrast MediaBiopsyBreast neoplasmsContrast mediaMammographyRadiation dosage

Identifiers

PMID39143245
PMCPMC11914308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.