Tomosentez ve Kontrastlı Mamografi
Özet
Meme kanseri, kadınlar arasında en sık görülen kanser türü olup, erken teşhis sağkalımı olumlu yönde etkileyen en önemli faktörlerden biridir. Geleneksel olarak kullanılan dijital mamografi, yoğun meme dokusu nedeniyle bazı sınırlılıklar taşır. Bu sınırlılıkları aşmak amacıyla geliştirilen dijital meme tomosentezi (DMT), memenin kesitsel görüntülerini elde ederek yalancı pozitiflikleri ve negatiflikleri azaltır. DMT, mamografi ile kullanıldığında kanser tespit oranlarını artırır ve geri çağırılma oranlarını düşürür. Öte yandan, kontrastlı mamografi, iyotlu kontrast madde kullanarak tümör neovaskülarizasyonunu ortaya çıkarır ve meme manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG)’sine alternatif olarak kabul edilir. Kontrastlı mamografi, özellikle MRG yapılamayan hastalarda önemli bir görüntüleme yöntemi olarak öne çıkar. Her iki teknik de meme kanserinin daha hassas ve doğru bir şekilde tespit edilmesine olanak tanır, ancak artan radyasyon dozu gibi bazı dezavantajlar da taşırlar. Bu yeni teknolojiler, meme kanseri tarama ve tanısında önemli faydalar sunarken, dikkatli kullanımları gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır.
Breast cancer represents the most prevalent form of cancer among women. Early detection is a critical factor that significantly impacts survival rates. The traditional digital mammography method is constrained by limitations due to the dense breast tissue. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DMT), which was developed to overcome these limitations, reduces the number of false positives and negatives by obtaining cross-sectional images of the breast. The integration of DMT with mammography has been demonstrated to enhance cancer detection rates while concurrently reducing recall rates. Conversely, contrast-enhanced mammography employs the use of iodinated contrast media to reveal tumor neovascularization, and is regarded as a potential alternative to breast MRI. Contrast-enhanced mammography is an important imaging modality, particularly for patients who are unable to undergo MRI. Both techniques facilitate more sensitive and accurate detection of breast cancer; however, they also entail certain disadvantages, including an increased radiation dose. While these novel technologies offer significant advantages in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, it is imperative to exercise caution in their utilization.
Referanslar
Kashyap D, Pal D, Sharma R, Garg VK, Goel N, Koundal D, et al. Global Increase in Breast Cancer Incidence: Risk Factors and Preventive Measures. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:9605439.
World Health Organization International Agency for Research of Cancer. Globocan. Cancer Today. 2020. (29/08/2024 tarihinde https://gco.iarc.fr/today/online-analysis-%20pie?v=2020&mode=cancer&mode_population=countr%20ies&population=900&populations=900&key=total&se%20x=0&cancer=39&type=0&statistic=5&prevalence=0&%20population_group=0&ages_group%5B%5D=3&ages_%20group%5B%5D=17&nb_items=7&group_cancer=1&include_%20nmsc=1&include_nmsc_other=12%2F1_pie%3D0&donut=0 adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
Khrouf S, Letaief Ksontini F, Ayadi M, Belhaj Ali Rais H, Mezlini A. Breast cancer screening: a dividing controversy. Tunis Med. 2020;98(1):22-34.
Løberg M, Lousdal ML, Bretthauer M, Kalager M. Benefits and harms of mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17(1):63.
Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. Jama. 2014;311(13):1327-35.
T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü Kanser Daire Başkanlığı. “Ekim” Meme Kanseri Farkındalık Ayı. (25/08/2024 tarihinde https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/haberler-kanser/ekim-meme-kanseri-farkindalik-ayi.html adresinden ulaşılmıştır).
Vedantham S, Karellas A, Vijayaraghavan GR, Kopans DB. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art. Radiology. 2015;277(3):663-84.
Mandoul C, Verheyden C, Millet I, Orliac C, Pages E, Thomassin I, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: What do we know and where do we stand? Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019;100(10):537-51.
Chong A, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Concepts and Clinical Practice. Radiology. 2019;292(1):1-14.
Seeram E. Digital Tomosynthesis. In: Seeram E, editor. Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and Quality Control. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019. p. 125-38.
Jousi MO, Erkkilä J, Varjonen M, Soiva M, Hukkinen K, Blanco Sequeiros R. A new breast tomosynthesis imaging method: Continuous Sync-and-Shoot - technical feasibility and initial experience. Acta Radiol Open. 2019;8(3):2058460119836255.
Tirada N, Li G, Dreizin D, Robinson L, Khorjekar G, Dromi S, et al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Physics, Artifacts, and Quality Control Considerations. Radiographics. 2019;39(2):413-26.
Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014301.
Kulkarni S, Freitas V, Muradali D. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Potential Benefits in Routine Clinical Practice. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022;73(1):107-20.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47-56.
Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(10):1799-807.
Fontaine M, Tourasse C, Pages E, Laurent N, Laffargue G, Millet I, et al. Local Tumor Staging of Breast Cancer: Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2019;291(3):594-603.
Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: Increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. The Breast. 2014;23(1):76-80.
Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269(3):694-700.
Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, Maidment AD, Barufaldi B, Weinstein SP, et al. Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. Radiology. 2016;281(3):730-6.
Houssami N. Evidence on Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Versus Digital Mammography When Using Tomosynthesis (Three-dimensional Mammography) for Population Breast Cancer Screening. Clin Breast Cancer. 2018;18(4):255-60.e1.
Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):655-63.
Zuckerman SP, Maidment ADA, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF. Imaging With Synthesized 2D Mammography: Differences, Advantages, and Pitfalls Compared With Digital Mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(1):222-9.
Zuckerman SP, Sprague BL, Weaver DL, Herschorn SD, Conant EF. Survey Results Regarding Uptake and Impact of Synthetic Digital Mammography With Tomosynthesis in the Screening Setting. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(1 Pt A):31-7.
Hooley RJ, Durand MA, Philpotts LE. Advances in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):256-66.
Lee CH, Destounis SV, Friedewald SM, Newell MS. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) Guidance. Am Coll Radiol [Internet]. 2013;15.
Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266(3):743-51.
Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, Andrews-Tang D, Roth A, et al. Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease. Radiology. 2017;285(2):389-400.
Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential Cost Savings of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231-w7.
Ackerman LV, Watt AC, Shetty P, Flynn MJ, Burke M, Kambouris A, et al. Breast lesions examined by digital angiography. Work in progress. Radiology. 1985;155(1):65-8.
Watt AC, Ackerman LV, Shetty PC, Burke M, Flynn M, Grodsinsky C, et al. Differentiation between benign and malignant disease of the breast using digital subtraction angiography of the breast. Cancer. 1985;56(6):1287-92.
Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Skarpathiotakis M, Shumak RS, Danjoux NM, Gunesekara A, et al. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical experience. Radiology. 2003;228(3):842-50.
Sogani J, Mango VL, Keating D, Sung JS, Jochelson MS. Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future. Clin Imaging. 2021;69:269-79.
Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology. 2003;229(1):261-8.
Francescone MA, Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Hughes MC, Zheng J, et al. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(8):1350-5.
Lalji UC, Jeukens CR, Houben I, Nelemans PJ, van Engen RE, van Wylick E, 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. 2015;25(10):2813-20.
Oktay A. Meme hastalıklarında görüntüleme. Ankara: Dünya Tıp Kitabevi; 2020.
Giannotti E, Van Nijnatten TJA, Chen Y, Bicchierai G, Nori J, De Benedetto D, et al. The role of contrast-enhanced mammography in the preoperative evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol. 2024;79(6):e799-e806.
Zhu X, Huang J-m, Zhang K, Xia L-j, Feng L, Yang P, et al. Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Screening Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Breast Cancer. 2018;18(5):e985-e95.
Xiang W, Rao H, Zhou L. A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Thorac Cancer. 2020;11(6):1423-32.
Pötsch N, Vatteroni G, Clauser P, Helbich TH, Baltzer PAT. Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2022;305(1):94-103.
Neeter LMFH, Robbe MMQ, Van Nijnatten TJA, Jochelson MS, Raat HPJ, Wildberger JE, et al. Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Breast MRI: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Cancer. 2023;14(1):174-82.
Luczynska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Hendrick E, Dyczek S, Rys J, Herman K, et al. Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:1358-67.
Lobbes MBI, Heuts EM, Moossdorff M, van Nijnatten TJA. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging of breast cancer: The pro CEM perspective. Eur J Radiol. 2021;142:109883.
Barra FR, Sobrinho AB, Barra RR, Magalhaes MT, Aguiar LR, de Albuquerque GFL, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM) for Detecting Residual Disease after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Comparison with Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:8531916.
Patel BK, Hilal T, Covington M, Zhang N, Kosiorek HE, Lobbes M, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography is Comparable to MRI in the Assessment of Residual Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(5):1350-6.
Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, Rimareix F, Delaloge S, Tardivon A, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. European Radiology. 2011;21(3):565-74.
Tardivel AM, Balleyguier C, Dunant A, Delaloge S, Mazouni C, Mathieu MC, et al. Added Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Postscreening Assessment. Breast J. 2016;22(5):520-8.
Lalji UC, Houben IP, Prevos R, Gommers S, van Goethem M, Vanwetswinkel S, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4371-9.
Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Abrams GS, Ganott MA, Gizienski TA, Hakim CM, et al. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(7):969-76.
Cheung YC, Juan YH, Lin YC, Lo YF, Tsai HP, Ueng SH, et al. Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Enhancement Analysis on BI-RADS 4 Non-Mass Microcalcifications in Screened Women. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162740.
Houben IP, Vanwetswinkel S, Kalia V, Thywissen T, Nelemans PJ, Heuts EM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the evaluation of breast suspicious calcifications: diagnostic accuracy and impact on surgical management. Acta Radiol. 2019;60(9):1110-7.
Amir T, Pinker K, Sevilimedu V, Hughes M, Keating DT, Sung JS, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Women with Palpable Breast Abnormalities. Academic Radiology. 2024;31(4):1231-8.
Sorin V, Faermann R, Yagil Y, Shalmon A, Gotlieb M, Halshtok-Neiman O, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in women presenting with palpable breast findings. Clin Imaging. 2020;61:99-105.
Bernardi D, Vatteroni G, Acquaviva A, Valentini M, Sabatino V, Bolengo I, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Versus MRI in the Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;219(6):884-94.
Helal MH, Mansour SM, Ahmed HA, Abdel Ghany AF, Kamel OF, Elkholy NG. The role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in the evaluation of the postoperative breast cancer. Clin Radiol. 2019;74(10):771-81.
Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, Konig R, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1450-7.
Sung JS, Lebron L, Keating D, D'Alessio D, Comstock CE, Lee CH, et al. Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer. Radiology. 2019;293(1):81-8.
Rudnicki W, Piegza T, Rozum-Liszewska N, Gorski M, Popiela TJ, Basta P, et al. The effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in dense breasts. Pol J Radiol. 2021;86:e159-e64.
Lewin JM, Patel BK, Tanna A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review. Journal of Breast Imaging. 2020;2(1):7-15.
Zanardo M, Cozzi A, Trimboli RM, Labaj O, Monti CB, Schiaffino S, et al. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):76.
James JR, Pavlicek W, Hanson JA, Boltz TF, Patel BK. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(2):362-72.
