Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 3, 2025
Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using a Cone-shaped Double-hole Method with Dual-plane Probe Guidance
Published on: June 6, 2025
Contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy: technical feasibility and first outcomes
R Alcantara1,2, M Posso3, M Pitarch4
1Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital del Mar, Parc de Salut Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. ralcantara@psmar.cat.
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.
