No abstract

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is a diagnostic tool for breast cancer detection. Artefacts are observed in about 10% of CEDM examinations. Understanding CEDM artefacts is important to prevent diagnostic misinterpretation. In this article, we have described the artefacts that we have commonly encountered in clinical practice; we hope to ease the recognition and help troubleshoot solutions to prevent or minimise them.

Breast cancer (BC) is the cancer with the highest incidence in women in the world. In this last period, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused in many cases a drastic reduction of routine breast imaging activity due to the combination of various factors. The survival of BC is directly proportional to the earliness of diagnosis, and especially during this period, it is at least fundamental to remember that a diagnostic delay of even just three months could affect BC outcomes. In this article we will review the state of the art of breast imaging, starting from morphological imaging, i.e., mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced mammography, and their most recent evolutions; and ending with functional images, i.e., magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced mammography.

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in the post biopsy management of breast lesions classified as lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) by core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB). Methods The local ethics committee approved this retrospective study and for this type of study formal consent is not required. A total of 42 B3 lesions in 40 women aged 41–77 years were included in our study. All patients underwent CESM 2–3 weeks after the biopsy procedure and surgical excision was subsequently performed within 60 days of the CESM procedure. Three radiologists reviewed the images independently. The results were then compared with histologic findings. Results The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for confirmed demonstration of malignancy at CESM were 33.3%, 87.2%, 16.7%, and 94.4% for reader 1; 66.7%, 76.9%, 18.2%, and 96.7% for reader 2; 66.7%, 74.4%, 16.7%, and 96.7% for reader 3. Overall agreement on detection of malignant lesions using CESM among readers ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = .451–.696), for categorization of BPE from moderate to substantial (κ = .562–.711), and for evaluation of lesion intensity enhancement from fair to moderate (κ = .346–.459). Conclusion In cases of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 1, BI-RADS 2, or BI-RADS 3 results at CESM, follow-up or VAB rather than surgical biopsy might be performed.