R Alcantara1, V Iotti2, M Posso3, M Pitarch4, N Arenas4, B Ejarque4, G Besutti5,6. 1. Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. ralcantara@psmar.cat. 2. Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Laboratory Medicine, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. valentina.iotti@ausl.re.it. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Radiology Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Laboratory Medicine, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 6. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy at Hospital del Mar, a Spanish university hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive women with a suspicious enhancing finding eligible for CEM-guided biopsy, who were prospectively enrolled in a pre-marketing clinical validation and feasibility study (October 2019 to September 2021). CEM-guided biopsy is a stereotactic-based procedure that, by using intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition, provides localisation of enhancing lesions. All the biopsies were performed using a vacuum-assisted device. We collected procedural characteristics (patient position and type of approach), and histopathological results. Feasibility endpoints included success (visualisation of the enhancing lesion, post-procedural biopsy changes and clip placement), procedural time, number of scout acquisitions and complications. RESULTS: A total of 66 suspicious enhancing lesions (18.0% foci, 44.0% mass, 38.0% non-mass enhancement; median size 8.5 mm) in 64 patients (median age 59 years, mostly minimal [48.4%] or mild [32.8%] background parenchymal enhancement) were referred for CEM-guided biopsy in the study period. The success rate was 63/66 (95.4%). Amongst successful procedures, patients were most frequently seated (52/63, 82.5%) and the preferred approach was horizontal (48/63, 76.2%). Median total time per procedure was 15 min. Median number of acquisitions needed before targeting was 2 (range 1-4). Complications consisted of hematoma (17/63, 27%) and vasovagal reaction (2/63, 3.2%). At histology, the malignancy rate was 25/63 (39.7%). CONCLUSION: In this first patient series, CEM-guided breast biopsy was feasible, with success and complication rates similar to those previously reported for magnetic resonance guidance. KEY POINTS: • CEM may be used to guide biopsy of enhancing lesions through a stereotactic-based procedure combined with intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition. • In this first patient series (n = 64), the success rate of CEM-guided biopsy was above 95%, the only complications were hematoma (22.2%) and vasovagal reaction (3.2%), and median total time per procedure was 15 min. • CEM-guided biopsy is feasible and could potentially be a widely available biopsy technique for enhancing-only lesions.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)-guided biopsy at Hospital del Mar, a Spanish university hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive women with a suspicious enhancing finding eligible for CEM-guided biopsy, who were prospectively enrolled in a pre-marketing clinical validation and feasibility study (October 2019 to September 2021). CEM-guided biopsy is a stereotactic-based procedure that, by using intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition, provides localisation of enhancing lesions. All the biopsies were performed using a vacuum-assisted device. We collected procedural characteristics (patient position and type of approach), and histopathological results. Feasibility endpoints included success (visualisation of the enhancing lesion, post-procedural biopsy changes and clip placement), procedural time, number of scout acquisitions and complications. RESULTS: A total of 66 suspicious enhancing lesions (18.0% foci, 44.0% mass, 38.0% non-mass enhancement; median size 8.5 mm) in 64 patients (median age 59 years, mostly minimal [48.4%] or mild [32.8%] background parenchymal enhancement) were referred for CEM-guided biopsy in the study period. The success rate was 63/66 (95.4%). Amongst successful procedures, patients were most frequently seated (52/63, 82.5%) and the preferred approach was horizontal (48/63, 76.2%). Median total time per procedure was 15 min. Median number of acquisitions needed before targeting was 2 (range 1-4). Complications consisted of hematoma (17/63, 27%) and vasovagal reaction (2/63, 3.2%). At histology, the malignancy rate was 25/63 (39.7%). CONCLUSION: In this first patient series, CEM-guided breast biopsy was feasible, with success and complication rates similar to those previously reported for magnetic resonance guidance. KEY POINTS: • CEM may be used to guide biopsy of enhancing lesions through a stereotactic-based procedure combined with intravenous iodinated contrast media administration and dual-energy acquisition. • In this first patient series (n = 64), the success rate of CEM-guided biopsy was above 95%, the only complications were hematoma (22.2%) and vasovagal reaction (3.2%), and median total time per procedure was 15 min. • CEM-guided biopsy is feasible and could potentially be a widely available biopsy technique for enhancing-only lesions.
Authors: I P L Houben; P Van de Voorde; C R L P N Jeukens; J E Wildberger; L F Kooreman; M L Smidt; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maxine S Jochelson; Katja Pinker; D David Dershaw; Mary Hughes; Girard F Gibbons; Kareem Rahbar; Mark E Robson; Debra A Mangino; Debra Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Janice S Sung Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-10-07 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Ulrich Bick; Rubina M Trimboli; Alexandra Athanasiou; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A T Baltzer; Maria Bernathova; Krisztina Borbély; Boris Brkljacic; Luca A Carbonaro; Paola Clauser; Enrico Cassano; Catherine Colin; Gul Esen; Andrew Evans; Eva M Fallenberg; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Michel Herranz; Karen Kinkel; Fleur Kilburn-Toppin; Christiane K Kuhl; Mihai Lesaru; Marc B I Lobbes; Ritse M Mann; Laura Martincich; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Simone Schiaffino; Tamar Sella; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Anne Tardivon; Chantal Van Ongeval; Matthew G Wallis; Sophia Zackrisson; Gabor Forrai; Julia Camps Herrero; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2020-02-05
Authors: U C Lalji; I P L Houben; R Prevos; S Gommers; M van Goethem; S Vanwetswinkel; R Pijnappel; R Steeman; C Frotscher; W Mok; P Nelemans; M L Smidt; R G Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 5.315